Reading literacy in the age of digital technologies

• Authors: Oľga Zápotočná
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article outlines the basic contours of the current debate on literacy. Since the start of the millennium, the determining and dynamising factor in this debate has been information and communication technologies. The aim is to observe whether, and how, reading literacy, an important target category in education, is changing in this new reality. In the first part, the paper shows how the above questions are perceived and discussed in the field of relevant scientific disciplines from different points of view. In the second part, the research findings showing the risks and negative impacts of technologies are interpreted through the lenses of contemporary research on “new” literacy. Empirical research on specific aspects of online reading strategies and traditional print media reading are analysed and discussed in light of their contribution to reading literacy theory and education.

Keywords

EN

new literacy; reading online; metacognitive reading strategies

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 26
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 317-328

Dates

published

2016-09-01

online

2016-07-25

Contributors

author

Oľga Zápotočná

References

• 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.
• Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M.T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.E. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension process and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873-894.
• Barrel, B.R.C. (2000). Literacy theory in the age of internet, by T. Taylor, & I.Ward, 1998. (Book review). Interchange, 31(4), 447-456.
• Bauerlein, M. (2008).The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (Or, don’t trust anyone under 30). New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.
• Cho, B.Y. (2013). Adolescents’ constructively responsive reading strategy use in a critical internet reading task. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 329-332.
• Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458-464.
• Coiro, J. (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, 4(2), 214-257.
• Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 20(10), 1-41.
• Coiro, J. (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, 4(2), 214-257.
• Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D.J. (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Collin, R., & Street, B.V. (2014). Ideology and interaction: Debating determinisms in literacy studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(3), 351-359.
• COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology), Evolution of reading in the age of digitisation (E-Read, Action IS1404)
• Council on key competences for lifelong learning. L. 394, 10-18.
• Deakin-Crick, R. (2008). Key competencies for education in a European context: Narratives of accountability or care. European Educational Research Journal, 7(3), 311-318.
• European Commission (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning. L. 394, pp. 10-18.
• Fariña, P., San Martín, E., Preiss, D.D., Claro, M., & Jara, I. (2015). Measuring the relation between computer use and reading literacy in the presence of endogeneity. Computers & Education, 80, 176-186.
• Farmer, L. (2014). How AASL learning standards inform ACRL’s information literacy framework. Available at:
• Gil-Flores, J., Torres-Gordillo, J.J., & Perera-Rodríguez, V.H. (2012).The role of online reader experience in explaining students’ performance in digital reading. Computers & Education, 59(2), 653-660.
• Grafstein, A. (2002). A discipline-based approach to information literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 197-204.
• Hautecoeur, J-P. (2000). Literacy in the age of information: Knowledge, power and domination? International Review of Education, 46(5), 357-365.
• Helsper, E.J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520.
• Hrdináková, Ľ. (2007).Čitateľská gramotnosť ako kľúčová kompetencia informačnej gramotnosti [Reading literacy: a key competence in information literacy]. In R. Cenigová (Ed.), Školské knižnice ako informačné a kultúrne centrá škôl [online] (pp. 37-49). Bratislava: Slovenská pedagogická knižnica. Available online at:
• Kiili, C. (2012). Online reading as an individual and social practice. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 441. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University Printing House.
• Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. 2000. Internet in the classroom: Effects of reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Education Media International, 37, 149-155.
• Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, (J. 2009). Developing web literacy in collaborative inquiry activities.Computer & Education, 52(3), 668-680.
• Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think aloud. Journal of Adolescent Literacy, 48(6), 492-500.
• Lea, M., & Jones, S. (2011). Digital literacies in higher education: Exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 377-393.
• Lee, Y.H., & Wu, J.Y. (2012). The effect of individual differences in the inner and outer states of ICT on engagement in online reading activities and PISA 2009 reading literacy: Exploring the relationship between old and new reading literacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 336-342.
• 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.
• Lit, E. (2013). Measuring users’ internet skills: A review of past assessments and a look toward the future. New Media & Society, 15(4), 612-630.
• Madden, A.D., Ford, N., Gorrell, G., Eaglestone, B., & Holdridge, P. (2012). Metacognition and web credibility. Electronic Library, 30(5), 671-689.
• Marcum, J.W. (2002). Rethinking information literacy.The Library Quarterly, 72(1), 1-26.
• Martin, J. (2013). Refreshing information literacy. Communication on Information Literacy, 7(2), 114-127.
• Masson, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38(6), 607-633.
• Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2010). Fostering the development of critical thinking skills, and reading comprehension of undergraduates using a Web 2.0 tool coupled with a learning system. Interactive Learning Environment, 18(3), 263-276.
• Moje, E. (2009). A call for new research on new and multi-literacies. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 348-362.
• Pilerot, O., & Lindberg, J. (2011). The concept of information literacy in policy-making texts: An imperialistic project? Library Trends, 66(2), 338-360.
• Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
• Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
• Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3), Article 1. Available at:
• Rankov, P. (2006). Informačná spoločnosť: perspektívy, problémy, paradox [The information society: prospects, problems and paradoxes.] Levice: KKB, 2006.
• Roberts, P. (2000).Knowledge, information and literacy. International Review of Education, 46(5), 433-453.
• Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society. Ashland, OH, US: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
• Salovaara, H. (2005). An exploration of students’ strategy use in inquiry-based computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 39-52.
• Spitzer, M. (2012). Digitale Demenz: Wie wir uns und unsere Kinder um den Verstand bringen [Digital dementia: What we and our children are doing to our minds]. München: Droemer Knaur.
• Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Taylor, T., & Ward, I. (1998). Literacy theory in the age of internet. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Zápotočná, O. (2004). Kultúrna gramotnosť v sociálnopsychologických súvislostiach [Cultural literacy in social and psychological contexts.] Bratislava: Album.
• Zápotočná, O. (2013). Metakognitívne procesy v čítaní, učení a vzdelávaní [Metacognitive processes in reading, learning and education]. Trnava: TYPI Universitatis Tyrnaviensis – VEDA.
• Zápotočná, O. (2015). Teoretické modely porozumenia textu a ich interpretácie v školskom vzdelávaní [Theoretical models of comprehending and interpreting texts in schools]. Orbis Scholae, 9(3), 13-26.
• Zhang, S., & Duke, N.K. (2008). Strategies for internet reading with different reading purpose: A descriptive study of twelve good internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 128-162.
• Zheng, V., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Participation, interaction, and academic achievement in an online discussion environment.Computers & Education, 84, 78-89.
• Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The information service environment – Relationships and priorities. Washington : National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1974.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/humaff-2016-0027