We examined audience awareness in a 5-month naturalistic study of a fourth-grade classroom infused with technology. All students had a computer on their desks, and five multimedia workstations with Web access were available in the classroom. We found that this technology-rich classroom, which also valued collaboration and inquiry, offered such pervasive opportunities for interaction between authors and classmates that it was difficult to distinguish between author and audience. We propose interactive audience as an expanded conception of audience awareness, and we examine the impact that interactive audience had on authors and their composition.
References
1.
Anderson-InmanL. (1997). OWLS: Online writing labs. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 650–654.
2.
AndrewP.G.MusserL.R. (1997). Collaborative design of World Wide Web pages: A case study. Information Technology and Libraries, 16 (1), 34–38.
3.
BakerE.A. (1994, November). The public nature of elementary literacy activities in a high technology environment. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN.
4.
BakerE.A. (in press). Sociocultural theory, semiotics, and technology: Implications for the nature of literacy. Reading Improvement..
5.
BakerE.A.KinzerC.K. (1998). Effects of technology on process writing: Are they all good? In ShanahanT.Rodriguez-BrownF. (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 428–440). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
6.
BloomeD. (1989). Beyond access: An ethnographic study of reading and writing in a seventh-grade classroom. In BloomeD. (Ed.), Classrooms and literacy (pp. 53–104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
BruceB.C. (1997). Literacy technologies: What stance should we take?Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 289–309.
8.
BruceB.C.MichaelsS.Watson-GegeoK. (1985). How computers can change the writing process. Language Arts, 62, 143–149.
9.
CalkinsL.H. (1994). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
10.
CaseyJ.M. (1997). Early literacy: The empowerment of technology.Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
11.
ChangL.OsguthorpeR. (1990). The effects of computerized picture-word processing on kindergartner's language development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 5, 73–84.
12.
ClarkH.H. (1985). Language use and language users. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 179–231). New York: Random House.
13.
ClarkR.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 21–29.
14.
Cochran-SmithM. (1991). Wordprocessing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61 (1), 107–155.
15.
ColeyR.J.CradlerJ.EngelP. (1997). Computer and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools.Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
16.
CorsaroW.A. (1985). Friendship and peer culture in the early years.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
17.
CrowhurstM.PicheG.L. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 101–109.
18.
DaiuteC. (1985). Issues in using computers to socialize the writing process. Educational Communication and Technology, 33 (1), 41–50.
19.
deCastellS.LukeA. (1988). Defining “literacy” in North American schools: Social and historical conditions and consequences. In KintgenE.R.KrollB.M.RoseM. (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 159–174). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
20.
DeFordD.E. (1981). Literacy: Reading, writing, and other essentials. Language Arts, 58, 652–658.
21.
EdingerM. (1994). Empowering young writers with technology. Educational Leadership, 51 (7), 58–60.
22.
FloodJ.LappD. (1995). Broadening the lens: Toward an expanded conceptualization of literacy. In HinchmanK.A.LeuD.J.KinzerC.K. (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice. Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1–16). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
23.
FlowerL.S.HayesJ.R. (1981). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 229–243.
24.
GalliniJ.K.HelmanN. (1995). Audience awareness in technology-mediated environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 245–261.
25.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago: Aldine.
26.
GoffmanE. (1981). Forms of talk.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
27.
GravesD.HansenJ. (1983). The author's chair. Language Arts, 60, 176–182.
28.
GuhlinJ.M. (1996). The writing-technology connection. Technology Connection, 2 (9), 12–13.
29.
HallidayM.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean.New York: Elsevier.
30.
HallidayM.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic.Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
31.
HarsteJ.C.WoodwardV.A.BurkeC.L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
32.
JonesI.PellegriniA.D. (1996). The effects of social relationships, writing, media, and microgenetic development on first-grade students' written narratives. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 691–718.
33.
JoramE.WoodruffE.BrysonM.LindsayP. (1992). The effects of revising with a word processor on written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 167–193.
34.
KlenowC. (1992). Technology in writer's workshop: Teaching with technology update. Instructor, 102 (4), 61–63.
35.
KozmaR. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 179–211.
36.
KrollB.M. (1986). Explaining how to play a game: The development of informative writing skills. Written Communication, 3 (2), 195–218.
37.
LabboL. (1994). The microcomputer and emergent literacy: A case study of computer-related literacy experiences at home. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Conference, Toronto, Canada.
38.
LabboL. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 356–385.
39.
LelandC.H.HarsteJ.C. (1994). Multiple ways of knowing: Curriculum in a new key. Language Arts, 71, 337–345.
40.
LeuD.J.Jr. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
MacArthurC.A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 344–354.
43.
MariageT.V. (1996). The construction and reconstruction of two discourse spaces in a special education classroom: A sociolinguistic examination of sharing chair and morning message. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
NeumanS.B. (1991). Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
46.
NystrandM. (1986). The structure of written communication.New York: Academic Press.
47.
PeirceC.S. (1966). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
Redd-BoydT.M.SlaterW.H. (1989). The effects of audience specification on undergraduates' attitudes, strategies, and writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 32, 77–108.
49.
ReinkingD.Bridwell-BowlesL. (1996). Computers in reading and writing. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP.D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 310–430). New York: Longman.
50.
ResnickD.P.ResnickL.B. (1977). The nature of literacy: An historical exploration. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 370–385.
51.
RoweD.W. (1987). Literacy learning as an intertextual process. In ReadenceJ.E.BaldwinScott R. (Eds.), Research in literacy: Merging perspectives. Thirty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 101–112). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
52.
RoweD.W. (1998). The literate potentials of book-related dramatic play. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 10–35.
53.
SalomonG. (1994). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54.
SalomonG.PerkinsD.N.GlobersonT. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20 (3), 2–9.
55.
ScardemaliaM.C.BereiterC. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 54 (3), 6–10.
56.
ScardemaliaM.C.BereiterC.McDonaldJ.S. (1997, March). Role-taking in written communication investigated by manipulating anticipatory knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
57.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
58.
TierneyR.J.LaZanskyJ.RaphaelT.CohenP. (1987). Author's intentions and reader's interpretations. In TierneyR.AndesP.MitchellJ. (Eds.), Understanding readers' understanding (pp. 205–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59.
TierneyR.J.ShanahanT. (1996). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP.D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 246–280). New York: Longman.
60.
WaughM.L.LevinJ.A.SmithK. (1994). Organizing electronic network-based instruction interactions: Successful strategies and tactics (Part I). The Computing Teacher, 21 (5), 21–22.
61.
WindschitlM. (1998). The www and classroom research: What path should we take?Educational Researcher, 27 (1), 28–33.
