College Students and New Literacy Practices

Handbook of Research on New Literacies

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 553-581

  Wilber, Dana J ^a  

^a MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145126895     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410618894-25     Document Type: Chapter

References (90)

1. Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.
2. Alvermann, D. (Ed.). (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New literacies and digital epistemologies. New York: Peter Lang.
3. Anson, C. (1999). Distant voices: Teaching and writing in a culture of technology. College English, 61(3), 261-280.
4. Aviles, K., Phillips, J., Rosenblatt, T., and Vargas, J. (2005). If higher education listened to me.Speech presented at ELI Meetings, (01/24./2005) Retrieved at: http://connect.educause. edu/library/abstract/IfHigherEducationLis/42623 on June 1, 2006.
5. Baer, J., Cook, A., and Baldi, S. (2006). The literacy of America’s college students. Denver, CO: American Institutes for Research.
6. Barone, C. (2005). The new academy. In D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 14.1-14.16). Boulder, CO: Educause.
7. Bradshaw, T., and Nichols, B. (2004). Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.
8. Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American’s lives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
9. Brown, M. (2005). Learning spaces. In D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 12.1-12.22). Boulder, CO: Educause.
10. Burbules, N. (1997). Misinformation, malinformation, messed-up information, and mostly useless information: How to avoid getting tangled up in the ‘Net. In Lankshear, C. and Bigum, C. (Eds.), Digital rhetorics: Literacies and technologies in education: Current practices and new directions (pp. 109-120). Canberra, Australia: Department of Employment, Education, Training, and Youth Affairs/Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology.
11. Burton, V., and Chadwick, S. (2000). Investigating the practices of student researchers: Patterns of use and criteria for use of internet and library source. Computers and Composition, 17(3), 309-328.
12. Cammack, D. (2005a). By any means necessary: Understanding the literacy and technology practices of using multimedia in a college history course (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 229.
13. Cammack, D. (2005b). Multiple modes, one life: A semiotic analysis of a blogger and her blog. Paper presented to the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
14. Cammack, D. (2005c). No straight line: Wrinkling binaries in literacy and technology research. eLearning, 2(3), 153-168.
15. Carroll, J., Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J., and Murphy, J. (2002). Just what do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. Retrieved (05/2006), from ieeexplore.ieee. org/iel5/7798/21442/00994089.pdf
16. Chu, E. (2005). A note to Mom: Why I use IM. The Mercury Project for Instant Messaging Studies. Retrieved on 06/2006.
17. Colbeck, C., Campbell, S., and Bjorklund, S. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 60-83.
18. Daugherty, M., and Funke, B. (1998). University faculty and student perceptions of web-based instruction. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance, 13(1). Retrieved July 25, 2006 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.1/daugherty.html
19. Davies, J. (2006). Escaping to the borderlands: An exploration of the Internet as a cultural space for teenaged Wiccan girls. In K. Pahl and J. Rowsell (Eds.), Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice (pp. 57-71). Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
20. Duffelmeyer, B. B. (2000). Critical computer literacy: Computers in first-year composition as topic and entertainment. Computers and Composition, 17, 289-307.
21. Dutt-Doner, K., and Powers, S. (2000). The use of electronic communication to develop alternative avenues for classroom discussion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 153-172.
22. Electronic Publishing Initiative at Columbia (EPIC). (2003). Executive summary of student survey. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://epic.columbia.edu/eval/eval04frame.html
23. Eveland, W., Marton, K., and Seo, M. (2004). Moving beyond “just the facts:" The influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research, 31(1), 82-108.
24. Flowers, L., Pascarella, E. T., and Pierson, C. (2000). Information technology use and cognitive outcomes in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 637-667.
25. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Gilster, P. (1998). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.
27. Glenn, L., Jones, C., and Hoyt, J. (2003). The effect of interaction levels on student performance:A comparative analysis of web-mediated versus traditional delivery. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(3), 285-301.
28. Gustafson, K. (2003-4). The impact of technologies on learning. Planning for Higher Education, Society for College, and University Planning, 32(2), 37-43.
29. Gustafson, K., and Kors, K. (2004). Strategic implications of an educational technology assessment. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 27(2). Retrieved May 5, 2006, from http://www.educause. edu/pub/eq/eqm04/eqm04210.asp?bhcp=1
30. Hara, N., Bonk, C., and Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.
31. Hartman, J., Moskal, P., and Dziuban, C. (2005). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. In D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 6.1-6.15). Boulder, CO: Educause.
32. Hawisher, G. E., and Selfe, C. L. (2004). Becoming literate in the information age: Cultural ecologies and the literacies of technology. College Composition and Communication, 55(4), 642-692.
33. Howe, N., and Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York:Vintage.
34. Jacobs, G. E. (2004). Complicating contexts: Issues of methodology in researching the language and literacies of instant messaging. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 394-406.
35. Jones, S. (2003). Let the games begin: Gaming technology and entertainment among college students. Retrieved July 8, 2003, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc. asp?Report=93
36. Jones, G. (2004). 3D On-line distributed learning environments: An old concept with a new twist. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference, 2004 (pp. 507-512). Chesapeake, VA:AACE.
37. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Retrieved March 17, 2004, from www.kff.org/entmedia/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot /security/getfile.cfmandPageID=22754
38. Kapitzke, C. (2000). [Review of the book Network science a decade later: The Internet and classroom learning]. Teaching Education, 11(2), 233-235.
39. Knobel, M., and Lankshear, C. (2004). Planning pedagogy for i-mode: From flogging to blogging via wi-fi. English in Australia, 139, 78-102.
40. Knobel, M., and Lankshear, C. (2005). “New literacies”: Research and social practice. In B.Maloch, J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, C. Fairbanks, and J. Worthy (Eds.), 54th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 22-50). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
41. Landow, G. (2002). Educational innovation and hypertext: One university’s successes and failures in supporting new technology. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Silicon literacies: communication, innovation, and education in the electronic age (pp. 101-115). London: Routledge.
42. Lankshear, C., and Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
43. Lansford, C. E. (1999). Using pre-test/post-test data to evaluate the effectiveness of computeraided instruction (A study of CAI and its use with developmental reading students).Paper presented at the SITE 99: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX.
44. Larson, B. E., and Keiper, T. A. (2002). Classroom discussion and threaded electronic discussion:Learning in two areas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 45-62.
45. Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., and Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell, and N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
46. Lewis, C., and Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470-501.
47. Ling, R. (2001). Adolescent girls and young adult men: Two sub-cultures of the mobile telephone (RandD report r 34/2001). Kjeller, Norway: Telenor Research and Development.Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://telenor.no/fou/program/nomadiske/articles/ rich/(2001)Adolescent.pdf
48. Lohnes, S. (2005). Blogging within the system: Exploring undergraduate literacy practices in school-sanctioned blogs. Paper presented to the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
49. Lohnes, S. (2006). To IM or not: Exploring the contexts of undergraduates’ literate engagement with technology on campus. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
50. Lupia, A., and Philpot, T. (2005). Views from inside the Net: How websites affect young adults’ political interest. Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1122-1142.
51. Madden, M., and Jones, S. (2002). The internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_ storage_01/0000000b/80/28/22/3c.pdf
52. Maloney, W. H. (2003). Connecting the texts of their lives to academic literacy: Creating success for at-risk first-year college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(8), 664-672.
53. Marsh, J. (2005). Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood. London; New York: Routledge Farmer.
54. McNeely, B. (2005). Using technology as a learning tool, not just the cool new thing. In D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 4.1-4.10). Boulder, CO: Educause.
55. Metzger, M., Flanagin, A., and Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers and Education, 41, 271-290.
56. Miall, D., and Dobson, T. (2001). Reading hypertext and the experience of literature. Journal of Digital Information, 2(1), Electronic resource. Retrieved (06/2007), from http://journals. tdl.org/jodi/article/view/jodi-36/37
57. Nachbaur, A. (2003). College students and instant messaging: An analysis of chatting, flirting, and using away messages. Mercury Project for Instant Messaging Studies at Stanford. Retrieved (06/2006), from http://www.stanford.edu/class/pwr3-25/group2/projects/ nachbaur.html#
58. Nespor, J. (2006). Technology and the politics of instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59. Noble, D. (1998). Digital diploma mills, part 1: The automation of higher education. October, 86, 107-117.
60. Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8, pp. 1-18.
61. Oblinger, D., and Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO:Educause.
62. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9.
63. Quarshie Smith, B. (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.
64. Rainie, L. (2005). The state of blogging. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
65. Reed, W. M. (1990). The effect of computer-and-writing instruction on prospective English teachers’ attitudes toward and perceived uses of computers in writing instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(1), 3-27.
66. Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. New York: Basic Books.
67. Roberts, G. (2005). Technology and learning expectations of the net generation. In D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 3.1-3.7). Boulder, CO: Educause.
68. Romano, L. (2005, December 25). Literacy of college graduates is on decline: survey’s finding of a drop in reading proficiency is inexplicable, experts say. Washington Post, A12. Retrieved May 25, 2006, from http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2005/12/24/ AR2005122400701.html
69. Satchell, C., and Singh, S. (2005). The mobile phone as the globalizing icon of the early 21st century. Smart Internet Technology Cooperative Research Centre. Retrieved (04/2007), from ucd.smartinternet.com.au/Documents/MobilePhone_Globalizing.pdf
70. Shuchat Shaw, F., and Giacquinta, J. (2000). A survey of graduate students as end users of computer technology: New roles for faculty. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 18(1). Retrieved May 5, 2006, from http://osra.org/itlpj/shuchatshawgiacquinta.
71. PDF Simon, E. J. (2001, Winter). Electronic textbooks: A pilot study of student e-reading habits. Future of Print Media Journal, pp. 1-5.
72. Smith, P., Coldwell, J., Smith, S., and Murphy, K. (2005). Learning through computermediated communication: A comparison of Australian and Chinese heritage. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 123-134.
73. Snyder, I. (2004). Pattern recognition: Learning from the technoliteracy research. Paper presented to the National Reading Conference 54th annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
74. Stahl, N. A., and King, J. R. (2000). A history of college reading. In R. F. Flippo and D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study research (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
75. Suoranta, J., and Lehtimaki, H. (2004). Children in the information society: The case of Finland. New York: Peter Lang.
76. Tao, L., and Moon, J. (1996). Electronic messages: Can we expect them to be coherent? Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the College Reading Association, Charleston, SC.
77. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.
78. Tenopir, C. (2003). Use and users of electronic library resources: An overview and analysis of recent research studies. Executive summary. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://clir.org/pubs/execsum/ sum120.html
79. Thorne, S. (2003, April). The internet as artifact: Immediacy, evolution, and educational contingencies, or “The wrong tool for the right job?" Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL.
80. Thorne, S., and Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary Trajectories, Internet-mediated Expression, and Language Education (Special issue). CALICO Journal, 371-397.
81. Trevino, E. M. (2005). Blogger motivations: Power, pull, and positive feedback. Internet Research 6.0, Annual Meeting of Association of Internet Researchers, Chicago, IL.
82. Valeri-Gold, M., and Commander, N. E. (2000-2001). An examination of at-risk college students’ sexist attitudes toward reading. The Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 30, 1-9.
83. Warschauer, M. (2000). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
84. Weiler, A. (2001). “Two-year-college-freshmen and the internet: Do they really know all that stuff?" Libraries and the Academy. Volume 1, Number 2, April 2001, pp. 161-167. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press.
85. Wells, J. (2000). Effects of an on-line computer-mediated communication course, prior computer experience and internet knowledge, and learning styles on students’ internet attitudes computer-mediated technologies and new educational challenges. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(3). Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://scholar.lib. vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v37n3/wells.html
86. Wepner, S. B. (1990). Do computers have a place in college reading courses? Journal of Reading, 33(5), 348-354.
87. Windham, C. (2005a). “Father Google and mother IM: Confessions of a net gen learner.” EDUCAUSE Review, 42-58.
88. Windham, C. (2005b). The student’s perspective. In D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 5.1-5.12). Boulder, CO: Educause.
89. Yaworski, J. (2000). Using computer-based technology to support the college reading classroom. Technology and College Reading, 31(1), 19-41.
90. Yellowlees-Douglas, J. (2002). Here even when you’re not: Teaching in an internet degree program. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Silicon literacies: communication, innovation and education in the electronic age (pp. 116-129). London: Routledge.