Students have high levels of access to digital multimedia tools, yet classroom routines barely tap the potential of digital media for learning. Current uses of nonprint literacy resources employ routine alphabetic literacy practices and fail to fully use some unique characteristics of digital media such as immediacy, archival breadth and depth, interactivity, and the implosion of multiple media texts. Hands-on production is marginalized in elementary and secondary school settings—even when digital literacy tools are abundant. Practices that extend the concept of reading and writing to include the viewing and representing of multimedia texts are necessary if digital literacy is to be integrated across the curriculum. The article presents educational design strategies that can be customized to support the uses of digital literacy tools for learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aiken, M. C., ed. 1992. Media Use in Education. Encyclopedia of Educational Research2:805-813.
2.
American Association of School Librarians and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 1998. Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.ala.org/aasl/ip_nine.html.
3.
Apple, Michael W. 1979. Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
4.
Atkinson, Richard C., and Greg B. Jackson. 1992. Research and Education Reform: Roles for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
Ausubel, David P. 1967. A Cognitive Structure Theory of School Learning. In Instruction: Some Contemporary Viewpoints, edited by Lynn Seigel. San Francisco: Chandler.
6.
Benhamou, Eric. 2000. The Digital Divide: Practical Solutions for Building Communities. The Commonwealth94 (4 September): 2-7.
7.
Brand, G. A. 1998. What Research Says: Training Teachers for Using Technology. Journal of Staff Development19 (1): 10-13.
8.
Buckingham, David. 2000. After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media. London: Polity.
9.
Carmine, D. 1993. Effective Teaching for Higher Cognitive Functioning. Educational Technology33 (10): 29-33.
10.
Carver, S. 1992. Learning by Hypermedia Design: Issues of Assessment and Implementation. Educational Psychologist27 (3): 380-400.
11.
Dick, Eddie. 1987. Signs of Success: Report of the Media Education Development Program. Glasgow: Scottish Film Council.
12.
Duffy, Thomas M., and David H. Jonassen. 1991. Constructivism: New Implications for Instructional Technology? Educational Technology31 (5): 7-12.
13.
Dyson, Ann H. 1997. Writing Superheroes: Contemporary Childhood, Popular Culture and Classroom Literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
Erikkson, G. 1988. Thinking in Visual Images in the Information Age: The Changing Faces of the School. Gifted Education International5 (2): 97-103.
Flood, James, Shirely Brice Heath, and Diane Lapp, eds. 1997. Handbook of Research on Teaching the Communicative and Visual Arts. New York: Macmillan.
17.
Freire, Paulo. [1970] 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
18.
Fulton, Kathleen. 1998. Kathleen Fulton on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Educational Technology. In The Millennium Project, from Debate to Understanding: The Evolving Role of Technology in Learning. Academy of Educational Development. Retrieved June 2001 from http://millennium.aed.org/fulton.shtml.
19.
Gee, James Paul. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.
20.
Gilster, Paul. 1998. Digital Literacy. New York: John Wiley.
21.
Giroux, Henri A. 1981. Ideology, Culture, and the Process of Schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
22.
Gooden, A. R. 1996. Computers in the Classroom: How Teachers and Students Are Using Technology to Transform Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Grunwald Associates and the National School Board Association. 2000. Children, Families and the Internet 2000. Burlingame, CA: Grunwald Associates. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.grunwald.com.
24.
Healy, Jane. 1999. Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds and What We Can Do about It. Carmichael, CA: Touchstone.
25.
Heidenrieich, B. 1997. The Effects of Hyperstudio on the Achievement of Seventh Grade Social Studies Students. Research Report, Washington, DC. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 412 895.
26.
International Society for Technology in Education. 2000. National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.iste.org/standards/index.cfm.
27.
Kirkpatrick, Heather, and Larry Cuban. 1998. Computers Make Kids Smarter— Right? Technos Quarter for Education and Technology7(2). Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.technos.net/journal/volume7/2cuban.htm.
28.
Lemke, Cheryl, Crystal Martin, and Elise Capella. 2001. Children and Computer Technology: Issues and Ideas. Palo Alto, CA: David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.futureofchildren.org.
29.
Martin, Henri-Jean. 1994. The History and Power of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Masterman, Len. 1985. Teaching the Media. London: Comedia Books.
31.
McGraph, D. 1992. Hypertext, CAI, Paper or Program Control: Do Learners Benefit from Choice? Journal of Research of Computing in Education24 (4): 513-532.
32.
Montgomery, Lee. 1999. The Effects of the Use of SURWEB Media Shows and Learning Segments on the Achievement of Seventh Grade Social Studies Students. Price, UT: Southeast Education Regional Service Center. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.surweb.org/information/Key-docs.asp.
33.
Montgomery, Lee. 2000. The Effects of SURWEB Hypermedia Construction on the Development of Complex Knowledge Structures, Creative Thinking, and Research Process Skills of Utah Sixth Grade Social Studies Students. Price, UT: Southeast Education Regional Service Center. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.surweb.org/information/Key-docs.asp.
34.
Mosenthal, Peter B. 2000. Assessing Knowledge Restructuring in Visually Rich, Procedural Domains. In Reconceptualizing Literacy in the Media Age, edited by Ann Watts Pailliotet and Peter B. Mosenthal, 331-362. Stamford, CT: JAI.
35.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2001. Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 2001 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001071.pdf.
36.
National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association. 1996. Professional Summary: Standards for the English Language Arts. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.ncte.org/standards/profsum.html.
37.
NetDay. 2001. The Internet, Technology & Teachers. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.netday.org.
38.
Pea, Roy D., Robert Tinker, Marcia Linn, Barbara Means, John Bransford, Jeremy Roschelle, Sherry Hsi, Sean Brophy, and Nancy Songer. 1999. Toward a Learning Technologies Knowledge Network. Educational Technology Research and Development. Retrieved June 2001 from http://cilt.org/seedgrant/publications.html.
39.
Ranie, Lee, and Dan Packel. 2001. PewInternet Project: Internet Tracking Report. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved February 2001 from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=30.
40.
Reed, W. Michael, and Gwendolyn S. Rosenbluth. 1992. The Effect of Hypercard Programming on Knowledge Construction and Interrelatedness of Humanities-Based Information. Research Report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 908.
41.
Reinking, David, Michael C. McKenna, Linda D. Labbo, and Ronald D. Keiffer, eds. 1998. Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a Post-typographic World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
Salomon, G., and D. Perkins. 1996. Learning in Wonderland: What Do Computers Really Offer Education? In Technology and the Future of Schooling: Ninety-fifth Year-book of the National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Stephen T. Kerr, 11-30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Schouten, Dirk, and Rob Watling. 1997. Media Action Projects: A Model of Integrating Video in Project-Based Education, Training and Community Development. Nottingham, UK: Urban Programme Research Group. Retrieved June 2001 from http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/schoutdi/.
Sefton-Green, Julian, and Rebecca Sinker, eds. 2000. Evaluating Creativity: Making and Learning by Young People. London: Routledge.
46.
Semali, Ladi, and Ann Watts Pailliotet, eds. 1998. Intermediality: The Teachers' Handbook of Critical Media Literacy. Boulder, CO: Westview/HarperCollins.
47.
Software and Information Industry Association. 1999. 2000 Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.siia.net/store/describe/r-schooltech.html.
48.
Swan, Karen, Dawn E. Cocks, Rachel Gorney, and Jennifer Richardson. 1999. Nonprint Literacy Standards for Assessing Technology Integration. Albany, NY: University at Albany, Center on English Learning and Achievement. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.albany.edu/ltl/nonprint.html.
49.
Sweet, Anne P. 1993. State of the Art: Transforming Ideas for Teaching and Learning to Read. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Tierney, R. J., and Timothy Shannahan. 1991. Research on the Reading-Writing Relationship: Interactions, Transactions, and Outcomes. In Handbook of Reading Research, edited by Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, 246-280. New York: Longman.
53.
Tyler, Ralph. 1950. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Tyner, Kathleen. 1998. Literacy in a Digital World: Teaching and Learning in the Age of Information. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55.
Tyner, Kathleen 1999. Student Uses of Technology in Rural Utah. San Francisco: West Ed and the Southeast Education Service Center. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.wested.org/tie/surweb.
56.
Tyner, Kathleen 2000a. Forward: Expanding Literacy in a Shrinking World. In Reconceptualizing Literacy in the Media Age, edited by Ann Watts Pailliotet and Peter B. Mosenthal, xv-xx. Stamford, CT: JAI.
57.
Tyner, Kathleen 2000b. Student Uses of Technologies for Learning: A Survey of SURWEB Users in Utah. Price: Southeast Utah Education Service Center. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.surweb.org/evaluation/.
58.
Tyner, Kathleen, Donna Bellarado, and Beverly Hunter. 2000. Final Report of Bridging the Gaps: A Research Agenda for New Learning Tools. Miami, FL: National Science Foundation and the Miami Museum of Science. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.miamisci.org/eff/report.html#overview.
59.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Falling through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. A Report on Americans' Access to Digital Tools. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved June 2001 from http://www.esa.doc.gov/.
60.
Velasco, G., and A. Mendivil. 1992. Using Hypercard to Make Architecture Education More Learner Centered. British Journal of Educational Technology23 (3): 172-180.
61.
Verhagen, P. 1996. Function and Design of Video Components in Multimedia. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook21:106-118.
62.
Vogel, D., and J. Klassen. 2001. Technology Supported Learning: Status, Issues and Trends. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning17 (1): 104-114.
63.
Watts Pailliotet, Ann, and Peter B. Mosenthal, eds. 2000. Reconceptualizing Literacy in the Media Age. Stamford, CT: JAI.
64.
Wisnudel, M. 1994. Constructing Hypermedia Artifacts in Math and Science Classrooms. Journal of Computers in Math and Science Teaching113 (1): 5-15.
