Advertisement

Technology and Literacies: From Print Literacy to Dialogic Literacy

  • Carl Bereiter
  • Marlene Scardamalia
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 13)

Abstract

A web search on the phrase “technology and literacy” will locate thousands of documents, almost all of which deal with “technological literacy” or ways of integrating technology into literacy instruction. Except for vague and optimistic pronouncements, there is very little about what technology can contribute to literacy development and almost nothing about how technology should figure in an education system’s literacy policy. The confusion between “technological literacy” and “technology for literacy” is especially unfortunate. The two are worlds apart and there is no reason to assume that people who speak learnedly about the first have knowledge relevant to the second. Educational policies need to be concerned with both, but the semantic overlap between the two is far from providing a reason to stretch one policy to cover them. What tends to get neglected in the confusion is “technology for literacy.” This chapter endeavours to remedy that neglect

Keywords

Phonemic Awareness Oral Reading Word Processor Knowledge Forum Dialogue Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. In Proceedings of the computer supported collaborative learning conference (CSCL’ 95: Bloomington, IN) (pp. 14–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 55–68). EARLI Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  6. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1982). Goals and strategies of inquiry teachers. In R. Glaser (Eds.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 65–119). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Conway, F. (2001). Effective communication. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension & Station Communications.Google Scholar
  9. Coogan, D. (1999). Electronic writing centers: Computing in the field of composition. Westport, Conn: Ablex.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldfine, R. (2001). Making word processing more effective in the composition classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  12. Gross, A. G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Guzdial, M. (1997). Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: Influences of tool. Proceedings of the computer support for collaborative learning conference, CSCL’97, 83–90.Google Scholar
  14. Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. Proceedings of the computer supported collaborative learning conference, CSCL’99, 232–241.Google Scholar
  15. Kintsch, E., Steinhart, D., Stahl, G., & LSA Research Group. (2000). Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2), 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mostow, J., Aist, G., Burkhead, P., Corbett, A., Cuneo, A., Eitelman, S., Huang, C., Junker, B., Sklar, M. B., & Tobin, B. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  20. 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: Reports of the subgroups. Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development.Google Scholar
  21. OECD-OCDE (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final report on the international adult literacy survey. Paris: OECD-OCDE; Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Rowley, K., & Meyer, N. (2003). The effect of a computer tutor for writers on student writing achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(2), 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76–98). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  25. Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Eds.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 253–279.Google Scholar
  28. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  29. Shamoon, L. (2001). Intercollegiate e-democracy project guide for faculty. Available, July, 2003, at http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/iedp/facultyguide.htm.
  30. Simons, H. W. (Ed.) (1990). The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1991). Reading as constrained reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 3–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Treiman, R. (2000). The foundations of literacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wood, J. (2001). Can software support children’s vocabulary development? Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 166–201.Google Scholar
  35. Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Givon, H. (1991). Enhancing writing-related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), pp. 373–391.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl Bereiter
    • 1
  • Marlene Scardamalia
    • 1
  1. 1.Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations