In this joint reflection, Elena Forzani and Donald J. Leu discuss the nature of literacy in relation to “New Literacies: A Dual-Level Theory of the Changing Nature of Literacy, Instruction, and Assessment” (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013), a chapter reprinted in this issue of the Journal of Education. They reflect on the meaning of a dual-level theory for teaching and research as the nature of literacy continuously changes. Within this context they consider what has changed and what remains the same in today's literacy landscape as well as the implications for future theory, research, and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AAP Council on Communications and Media. (2016). Media and young minds.Pediatrics,138(5), 1–8. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2591
2.
AfflerbachP. (2016). An overview of individual differences in reading. In AfflerbachP. (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context.New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AfflerbachP., & ChoB. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In IsraelS., & DuffyG. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
CoiroJ. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge.Journal of Literacy Research,43(4), 352–392. doi:10.1177/1086296X11421979
5.
EisensteinE. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
ForzaniE. (2016). Individual differences in evaluating the credibility of online information in science: Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs, C T. Retrieved from University of Connecticut Digital Commons. (1242)
7.
LeuD. J., ForzaniE., RhoadsC., MaykelC., KennedyC., & TimbrellN. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap.Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37–59. doi:10.1002/rrq.85
8.
LeuD. J., KinzerC. K., CoiroJ., CastekJ., HenryL. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In AlvermannD. E., UnrauN. J., & RuddellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (sixth ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Available at http://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/bonus-materials/710-chapter-42.pdf
9.
SchoenbachR., GreenleafC., CzikoC., & HurwitzL. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
