Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rewriting the Book: New Literacy Practices and Their Implications for Teaching and Evaluating Writing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Development of Writing Skills in Children in Diverse Cultural Contexts

  • 260 Accesses

Abstract

When the school day ends, young people around the world today are communicating. Through activities that are dialogic, interactive, multimodal, synchronous, and asynchronous, they consume, produce, and exchange information and experiences with peers, writing text-based messages which may include audio and video clips, original and retouched pictures, and other modes of expression. These novel practices, which engage the four language skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking in new ways, are redefining how we communicate and offer insights for adapting writing instruction for the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century, in which the “4 Cs” of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity have been cited as pivotal (AT21CS. What are 21st-century skills? Retrieved 10 April, 2022, from http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/what-are-21st-century-skills/, 2012). Yet, these new technology tools and literacy practices have yet to be fully understood and embraced in the school context. How might they serve as a roadmap for rethinking writing instruction and evaluation? For repositioning the role of the teacher? On the other hand, what hasn’t changed? What traditional skills and practices remain essential? This chapter will explore new paradigms in writing in light of past research and best practices and propose new ways to prepare students to be active, engaged communicators for a future that remains to be written.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvermann, D., & Xu, S. H. (2003). Children’s everyday literacies: Intersections of popular culture and language arts instruction. Language Arts, 81(2), 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • AT21CS. (2012). What are 21st-century skills? Retrieved 10 April, 2022, from http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/what-are-21st-century-skills/

  • Bahr, C. M., Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (1996). The effects of text-based and graphics-based software tools on planning and organizing of stories. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 355–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, J. L. (2015). Fanfiction as imaginary play: What fan-written stories can tell us about the cognitive science of fiction. Poetics, 48, 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Understanding literacy as social practice. In Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community (pp. 3–22).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in grades 1, 3, 5 and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 635–651.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). The psychology of written composition. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, R. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 118–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, R. W. (2007). Fanfiction writing and the construction of space. E-Learning and Digital Media, 4(4), 384–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, R. W. (2009). Online fan fiction and critical media literacy. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2013). Best practices in promoting motivation for writing. In S. Graham, C. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 202–221). The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botterill, J., Bredin, M., & Dun, T. (2015). Millennials’ media use: It is a matter of time. Canadian Journal of Communication, 40(3), 537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breuer, E., & Allsobrook, P. (2019). Teaching and practising interdiscursivity in the professional areas of engineering and health—A qualitative study. HERMES—Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 59(1), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education and the end of the critical consumer. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3), 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burning Glass Technologies. (2015). The human factor: The hard time employers have finding soft skills. E. Burning Glass Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canzanese, R. (2020). Remote work increasing exponentially due to COVID-19. https://www.netskope.com/fr/blog/remote-work-increasing-exponentially-due-to-covid-19 Accessed 19 April 2022.

  • Cole, H. C. (1981). The All’s well story from Boccaccio to Shakespeare. University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D. R., & Rowsell, J. (2014). A room with a view: Revisiting the multiliteracies manifesto, twenty years on. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen (2), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: The beginning of an idea. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crinon, J., & Marin, B. (2010). The role of peer feedback in learning to write explanatory texts: Why the tutors learn the most. Language Awareness, 19(2), 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S., Wan, Q., Allen, L., & McNamara, D. (2021). Source inclusion in synthesis writing: An NLP approach to understanding argumentation, sourcing, and essay quality. Reading and Writing, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, W. (2002). What is Wiki. WikiWikiWeb. http://www.wiki.org/wiki

  • Curwood, J. S., Magnifico, A. M., & Lammers, J. C. (2013). Writing in the wild: Writers’ motivation in fan-based affinity spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 677–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write: Can novices be masters? Cognition and Instruction, 10(4), 281–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Forgotten Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, A. H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12(1), 4–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: Process, structure, and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54(6), 513–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fan Fiction Statistics - FFN Research (2011, March 18). Retrieved October 17, 2014 from http://ffnresearch.blogspot.com

  • Fields, D., Magnifico, A., Lammers, J., & Curwood, J. (2014). DIY media creation. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(1), 19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2006). Teaching reading and writing in Spanish and English in bilingual and dual language classrooms. Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S., & Breuer, J. (2004). Studies in Hysteria. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2013). Digital media and learning: A prospective retrospective. Unpublished Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2015). When learning and assessment diverge: Who and what are we assessing? [unpublished manuscript]. Arizona State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk, F. (2019). Impacts of technology use on children: Exploring literature on the brain, cognition and well-being (OECD Education Working Papers, NO. 195). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/8296464e-en

  • Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander, & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 457–478). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 535–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Santangelo, T. (2015). Research-based writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 498–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Honigman, B. (2022, April 22). TikTok isn’t a social media platform, according to TikTok. www.fastcompany.com. Retrieved 15 May 2022 from www.fastcompany.com/90746981/tiktok-social-video

  • Hoogeveen, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2013). What works in writing with peer response? A review of intervention studies with children and adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 473–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, J. (1996). Why Freud isn’t dead. Scientific American, 275(6), 106–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, A. C., Woodward, L., & Colwell, J. (2016). What are preadolescent readers doing online? An examination of upper elementary students’ reading, writing, and communication in digital spaces. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual Poachers: Television, fans and participatory culture. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H. (2004, February 6). Why Heather can write, technology review, 6. Retrieved January 7, 2015, from http://technologyreview.com/articles/04/02/wo_jenkins020604.asp?p=1

  • Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilian, T., Hennigs, N., & Langner, S. (2012). Do Millennials read books or blogs? Introducing a media usage typology of the internet generation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 114–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. K., & McCarthy, K. S. (2021). Improving summary writing through formative feedback in a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 684–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, F. (2011). The Socratic method as an approach to learning and its benefits. Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, J., Magnifico, A., & Wang, A. (2021). Playful multiliteracies: Fan-based literacies’ role in English language arts pedagogy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1253

  • Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, W. W., Lui, V., & Chu, S. K. (2016). The use of wikis in a science inquiry-based project in a primary school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontiev, A. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The Wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Chu, S. K. W., & Ki, W. W. (2014). The effects of a wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy on writing ability and writing attitudes among upper primary school students in Mainland China. Computers & Education, 77, 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. International Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnifico, A. M., Lammers, J. C., & Fields, D. A. (2018). Affinity spaces, literacies and classrooms: Tensions and opportunities. Literacy, 52(3), 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, D., & Murphy, B. (2014). The challenge of supporting literacy in a digital age: perspectives of Irish primary school teachers. Irish Teachers’ Journal, 2(1), 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean, C. A., & Rowsell, J. (2015). Imagining writing futures: Photography, writing, and technology. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(2), 102–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage. Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzini Ceinar, I., & Mariotti, I. (2021). Teleworking in post-pandemic times: May local coworking spaces be the future trend? Romanian Journal of Regional Science, 15(1), 52–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, J., & Millard, E. (2000). Literacy and popular culture: Using children’s culture in the classroom. Paul Chapman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, J. (2004). The techno-literacy practices of young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, J. (2011). Young children’s literacy practices in a virtual world: Establishing an online interaction order. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2), 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melo, C., Madariaga, L., Nussbaum, M., Heller, R., Bennett, S., Tsai, C.-C., & van Braak, J. (2020). Editorial: Educational technology and addictions. Computers & Education, 145, 103730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menand, L. (2017). Why Freud survives. The New Yorker, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, G. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41(3), 118–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 770–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittell, J. (2009). Sites of participation: Wiki fandom and the case of Lostpedia. Transformative Works and Cultures, 3. https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2009.0118

  • New London Group (NLG). (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong, J. W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Methuen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ortoleva, G., Bétrancourt, M., & Billett, S. (2016). Writing for professional development. (Studies in Writing, Vol. 32). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004264830

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/ProfDev.pdf

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramdarshan Bold, M. (2018). The return of the social author: Negotiating authority and influence on Wattpad. Convergence, 24(2), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rish, R. M. (2015). Researching writing events: Using mediated discourse analysis to explore how students write together. Literacy, 49(1), 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, C. J. (1986). Plato: Phaedrus. Penguin Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in New Times: Multimodality, Multiliteracies, & New Literacies, Brock Education, 21(1), 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver, I., & Leijten, M. (2019). The diverse field of professional writing: Current perspectives on writing in the workplace. Hermes-Arhus, 59(1), 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriver, K. (2012). What we know about expertise in professional communication. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 275-312). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, B. H., & Levinsen, K. T. (2015). Emerging collaborative writing strategies in digital environments. In European conference on e-learning. (576). Academic Conferences International Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey, J. (1996). Cultural studies and the study of popular culture. University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, M. (2019). Engaging minds and hearts: Social and emotional learning in English language arts. Language and Literacy, 21(1), 122–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice (Vol. 9). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. (2006). Fan fiction online: engagement, critical response and affective play through writing. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(3), 226–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language, trans. Eugenia Hoffmann and Gertrude Vakar. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattpad. (2021). https://company.wattpad.com/blog/naver-completes-wattpad-acquisition

  • Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlwend, K. E. (2009). Damsels in discourse: Girls consuming and producing identity texts through Disney princess play. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 57–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo, M., Chu, S. K. W., Ho, A., & Li, X. (2011). Using a Wiki to scaffold primary-school students’ collaborative writing. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbrunn, S., & Bruning, R. (2013). Improving the writing and knowledge of emergent writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Reading and Writing, 26, 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brooklyn College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

    Kristina Cordero

Authors
  1. Kristina Cordero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Cordero .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Post-Graduate Program in Cognitive Psychology, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

    Alina Galvão Spinillo

  2. Institute for Advanced Studies in Education, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Carmen Sotomayor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cordero, K. (2023). Rewriting the Book: New Literacy Practices and Their Implications for Teaching and Evaluating Writing. In: Spinillo, A.G., Sotomayor, C. (eds) Development of Writing Skills in Children in Diverse Cultural Contexts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29286-6_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation