Readers of the information age increasingly resort to “texts” that are stored, organized, and accessed electronically and rely on symbol systems other than alphanumeric. In schools, multimedia software and hypertexts are increasingly common documents from which students learn. This study sought to document instances of “high” literacy, literate thinking, among elementary school students as they worked with common computer software in the course of their normal school day. Seven distinct forms of engagement emerged to categorize students' work, and these were arranged in order of complexity: disengagement, unsystematic engagement, frustrated engagement, structure-dependent engagement, self-regulated interest, critical engagement, and literate thinking. The taxonomy of student engagement is described with examples. It clarifies other researchers' conceptualizations of high literacy and engagement and integrates them with notions of intrinsic motivation, volition, and self-regulated learning. It also implies new ways for teachers to assess and scaffold student-software interactions to optimize student learning with electronic texts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Council of Teachers of English, Standards for the English Language Arts, NCTE, District of Columbia, 1996.
2.
Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1997.
U.S. Department of Education, Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training, FRSS 65, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, 1998.
5.
BereiterC. and ScardamaliaM., An Attainable Version of High Literacy: Approaches to Teaching Higher-Order Skills in Reading and Writing, Curriculum Inquiry, 17: 1, pp. 9–30, 1987.
6.
SpiroR. J. and JehngJ. C., Cognitive Flexibility and Hypertext: Theory and Technology for the Nonlinear and Multidimensional Traversal of Complex Subject Matter, in Cognition, Education, and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology, NixD. and SpiroR. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp. 163–205, 1990.
7.
RosenblattL. M., Literature as Exploration, Appleton Century, New York, 1938.
8.
RosenblattL. M., Continuing the Conversation: A Clarification, Research in the Teaching of English, 29: 3, pp. 349–354, 1995.
9.
LangerJ. A., Literature and Learning to Think, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10: 3, pp. 207–226, 1995a.
10.
LangerJ. A., Envisioning Literature: Literary Understanding and Literature Instruction, Teachers College Press, New York, 1995b.
11.
KumarD. D., A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Science Instruction and Student Engagement, Educational Review, 43: 1, pp. 49–61, 1991.
12.
MartensB. K.BradleyT. A., and EckertT. L., Effects of Reinforcement History and Instructions on the Persistence of Student Engagement, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30: 3, pp. 569–572, 1997.
13.
SalomonG. and GlobersonT., Skill May Not be Enough: The Role of Mindfulness in Learning and Transfer, International Journal of Educational Research, 11, pp. 623–637, 1987.
14.
SkinnerE. A. and BelmontM. J., Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School Year, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85: 4, pp. 571–581, 1993.
15.
MaloneT. W. and LepperM. R., Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for Learning, in Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, Volume 3: Conative and Affective Process Analyses, SnowR. E. and FarrM. J. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, pp. 223–253, 1987.
16.
CordovaD. I. and LepperM. R., Intrinsic Motivation and the Process of Learning: Beneficial Effects of Contextualization, Personalization, and Choice, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88: 4, pp. 715–730, 1996.
17.
JacquesR.PreeceJ., and CareyT., Engagement as a Design Concept for Multimedia, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24: 1, pp. 49–59, 1995.
18.
GuthrieJ. T.Van MeterP.McCannA. D.WigfieldA.BennettL.PoundstoneC.RiceM. E.FaibischF. M.HuntB., and MitchellA. M., Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivations and Strategies During Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction, Reading Research Quarterly, 31: 3, pp. 306–332, 1996.
19.
PintrichP. and De GrootE. V., Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82: 1, pp. 33–40, 1990.
20.
CornoL., Best-Laid Plans: Modern Conceptions of Volition and Educational Research, Educational Researcher, 22: 2, pp. 14–22, 1993.
21.
CornoL. and MandinachE. B., The Role of Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Learning and Motivation, Educational Psychologist, 18, pp. 88–108, 1983.
22.
PintrichP. R.MarxR. W., and BoyleR. A., Beyond Cold Conceptual Change: The Role of Motivational Beliefs and Classroom Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual Change, Review of Educational Research, 63: 2, pp. 167–199, 1993.
23.
WinneP. H., Inherent Details in Self-Regulated Learning, Educational Psychologist, 30: 4, pp. 173–187, 1995.
24.
GuthrieJ. T., Educational Contexts for Engagement in Literacy, The Reading Teacher, 49: 6, pp. 432–445, 1996.
25.
GuthrieJ. T.Van MeterP.HancockG. R.AlaoS.AndersonE., and McCannA., Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Increase Strategy Use and Conceptual Learning From Text?Journal of Educational Psychology, 90: 2, pp. 261–278, 1998.
26.
NystrandM. and GamoranA., Instructional Discourse, Student Engagement, and Literature Achievement, Research in the Teaching of English, 25: 3, pp. 261–290, 1991.
27.
LeeO. and AndersonC. W., Task Engagement and Conceptual Change in Middle School Science Classrooms, American Educational Research Journal, 30: 3, pp. 585–610, 1993.
28.
AinleyM. D., Styles of Engagement with Learning: Multidimensional Assessment of their Relationship with Strategy Use and School Achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85: 3, pp. 395–405, 1993.
29.
SchwierR. A., Learning Environments and Interaction for Emerging Technologies: Implications for Learner Control and Practice, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 22: 3, pp. 163–176, 1993.
30.
MandinachE. B. and CornoL., Cognitive Engagement Variations among Students of Different Ability Level and Sex in a Computer Problem Solving Game, Sex Roles13: 3–4, pp. 241–251, 1985.
31.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC.McLeanR. S.SwallowJ., and WoodruffE., Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5: 1, pp. 51–68, 1989.
32.
LamonM.ChanC.ScardamaliaM.BurtisP. J., and BrettC., Beliefs about Learning and Constructive Processes in Reading: Effects of a Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE), paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 1993.
33.
JacobsonM. J. and SpiroR. J., Hypertext Learning Environments, Cognitive Flexibility and the Transfer of Complex Knowledge: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12: 4, pp. 301–333, 1995.
34.
CsikszentmihalyiM., Intrinsic Rewards and Emergent Motivation, in The Hidden Costs of Reward, LepperM. R. and GreeneD. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp. 205–216, 1976.
35.
EnnisR. H., A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities, in Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice, BaronJ. B. and SternbergR. J. (eds.). Freeman, New York, pp. 9–26, 1987.
BoekaertsM., Self-Regulated Learning: A New Concept Embraced by Researchers, Policy-Makers, Educators, Teacher, and Students, Learning and Instruction7: 2, pp. 161–186, 1997.
