Abstract
A web search on the phrase “technology and literacy” will locate thousands of documents, almost all of which deal with “technological literacy” or ways of integrating technology into literacy instruction. Except for vague and optimistic pronouncements, there is very little about what technology can contribute to literacy development and almost nothing about how technology should figure in an education system’s literacy policy. The confusion between “technological literacy” and “technology for literacy” is especially unfortunate. The two are worlds apart and there is no reason to assume that people who speak learnedly about the first have knowledge relevant to the second. Educational policies need to be concerned with both, but the semantic overlap between the two is far from providing a reason to stretch one policy to cover them. What tends to get neglected in the confusion is “technology for literacy.” This chapter endeavours to remedy that neglect
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. In Proceedings of the computer supported collaborative learning conference (CSCL’ 95: Bloomington, IN) (pp. 14–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 55–68). EARLI Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. North-Holland: Elsevier.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 50(3), 5–22.
Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1982). Goals and strategies of inquiry teachers. In R. Glaser (Eds.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 65–119). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conway, F. (2001). Effective communication. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension & Station Communications.
Coogan, D. (1999). Electronic writing centers: Computing in the field of composition. Westport, Conn: Ablex.
Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
Goldfine, R. (2001). Making word processing more effective in the composition classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Gross, A. G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Guzdial, M. (1997). Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: Influences of tool. Proceedings of the computer support for collaborative learning conference, CSCL’97, 83–90.
Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. Proceedings of the computer supported collaborative learning conference, CSCL’99, 232–241.
Kintsch, E., Steinhart, D., Stahl, G., & LSA Research Group. (2000). Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2), 87–109.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341–358.
Mostow, J., Aist, G., Burkhead, P., Corbett, A., Cuneo, A., Eitelman, S., Huang, C., Junker, B., Sklar, M. B., & Tobin, B. (2003). Evaluation of an automated reading tutor that listens: Comparison to human tutoring and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 61–117.
Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development.
OECD-OCDE (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final report on the international adult literacy survey. Paris: OECD-OCDE; Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rowley, K., & Meyer, N. (2003). The effect of a computer tutor for writers on student writing achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(2), 169–187.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76–98). Chicago: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Eds.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 253–279.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Shamoon, L. (2001). Intercollegiate e-democracy project guide for faculty. Available, July, 2003, at http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/iedp/facultyguide.htm.
Simons, H. W. (Ed.) (1990). The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1991). Reading as constrained reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 3–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Treiman, R. (2000). The foundations of literacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 89–92.
Wood, J. (2001). Can software support children’s vocabulary development? Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 166–201.
Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Givon, H. (1991). Enhancing writing-related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), pp. 373–391.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M. (2005). Technology and Literacies: From Print Literacy to Dialogic Literacy. In: Bascia, N., Cumming, A., Datnow, A., Leithwood, K., Livingstone, D. (eds) International Handbook of Educational Policy. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3201-3_39
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3201-3_39
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3189-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3201-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)