Many forms of technological communication exist in non-linear environments and there is potential for new approaches to learning and teaching which may more closely approximate naturalistic and authentic approaches to learning. The following study examined the ways in which high school students were influenced by technology as they wrote and how different aspects of emergent technological literacies were appropriated into their writing processes. We found that the complexity of technological affordances largely informed the students' non-linear writing processes and that they exhibited fluency with non-linear frameworks. The students' use of technology no longer seemed an issue of translation. Rather, writing occurred in, around, and with this non-linear framework. It is likely that the more students use such non-linear frameworks, the more their fluency will continue to increase, and the more they will look to accomplish other writing tasks by using this “new” literacy that they have mastered.
CharmazK. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods, in: DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
CresswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
FlowerL., & HayesJ. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.
5.
FlowerL., & HayesJ. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.
6.
GeeJ. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses.Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
7.
LandowG. P. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
LanhamR. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
LankshearC., & KnobelM. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge in the classroom.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
10.
LatherP. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
LeuD. J.Jr.KinzerC. K.CoiroJ. L., & CammackD. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In RuddellR. B. and UnrauN. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
13.
LewisC., & FindersM. (2002). Implied adolescents and implied teachers: A generation gap for new times. In AlvermannD. E. (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 101–113). New York: Peter Lang.
National Writing Project & Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
16.
PrenskyM. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, December 2005/January 2006, 8–13.
17.
RichardsonL. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Schmar-DoblerE. (2003). Reading on the internet: The link between literacy and technology. Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(1), 80–85.
19.
Sefton-GreenJ. (2006). Youth, technology, and media cultures. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 279–306.
20.
SelfeC. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention.Carbonale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
21.
SelwynN. (2006). Exploring the ‘digital disconnect’ between net-savvy students and their schools. Learning, Media, and Technology, 31(1), 5–17.
22.
SmagorinskyP. (1994). Think-aloud protocol analysis: Beyond the black box. In SmagorinskyP. (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
SmithM. W. (1991). Constructing meaning from text: An analysis of ninth-grade reader responses. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 263–271.
24.
SnyderI. (1998). Beyond the hype: Reassessing hypertext. In SnyderI. (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic age (pp. 125–161). New York: Routledge.
25.
StakeR. E. (2000). Case studies. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
The New London Group. (2000) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In CopeB. & KalantzisM. (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures.London: Routledge.
