Social media reading

94 © Unisa Press ISSN 0027-2639 Mousaion 31 (1) 2013 pp. 94—109

READING, SOCIAL MEDIA AND LEARNING CONVERSATIONS

GERT J. VAN DER WESTHUIZENDepartment of Educational PsychologyUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburg, South [email protected]

ABSTRACTThis article explores the role of social media in reading education in schools. It offers an analysis of literature on how social media are changing reading practices, and makes a case for learning conversations as a necessary condition for progress in reading development and information literacy. The argument is developed that reading development (i.e. improvement in comprehension and performance) may be greatly enhanced through learning conversations, or what is called discussion-based reading; even more so with social media reading (SMR), which is conceived of as reading in electronic forms. Based on an exemplary analysis of how learning conversations about readings in school settings can be done, guidelines are proposed for the use of learning conversations in SMR.

KEYWORDSinformation literacy, online reading, social media reading, learning conversations, classroom teaching of reading, discussion-based learning, reading comprehension, conversation pedagogy

1 INTRODUCTIONThe growth in information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the availability of digital texts and social media on the Internet are contributing towards changes not only in forms of reading, but also how such media are used in the classroom teaching of reading, and reading and literacy practices (Al-Deen & Hendricks 2012; Berg 2011; Baran & Thompson 2010). These changes are referred to as “new literacies”, required for reading on the Internet, such as blogs, search engines, Wikis and online gaming (Leu, Zawilinski, Castek, Banerjee, Housand, Liu & O’Neil 2007). Social media include instant messaging, email messages and letters from friends, and these are examples of reading materials which require not only different places and purposes of reading, but can also be used in classroom reading lessons. These are all expanded opportunities to

95


read requiring different amounts of time used for reading, as well as changes in reading strategies (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack 2004; Coiro 2003; Rand Reading Study Group 2002). The implications for reading comprehension are clear: readers have to develop new ways of working with questions, locating information online, critically evaluating information, and locating and synthesising information across texts to be able to answer questions and communicate their discoveries to others (Leu et al 2007).

To illustrate some of the changes, the following interactions around reading may be considered. The first is a situation where grandfather G asked his grandchild S, in Grade six, what she read at school that day:

S: I took out a book today, Jasper the detective dog.

G: Good! Do you like it?

S: I’ve read 45 pages already!

G: How can a dog be a detective? What is a detective?

S: Like in Pink Panther the inspector Clouseau, he inspects things, he looks for clues.

G: But a dog can’t look for clues? I thought a dog can only smell.

S: Yes but my story is a fairy tale and the dog can do anything.

G: A detective dog? I’ve never seen one.

S: Google and you’ll see, or check Wikipedia …

The reading child in this situation is clearly well informed, and at ease – if you read something, and you do not understand it, then use the Internet. Apart from being confident when a child talks about reading, other skills come into play. Here is another example:

G: Do you read anything on your iPod?

J: Yes the Bible – that’s all I have.

G: What did you read?

J: From the New Testament.

G: How was it?

J: Nice …

G: What can you remember?

J: When I read I feel happy. I had the iPod in my hand, lying next to my dad. The iPod is only touch screen like iPad small – there is the same round button – you swipe around like the paper Bible.

G: Which is better?

96

GERT J. VAN DER WESTHUIZEN

J: The paper Bible because you can hold it next to you and can sleep with it, but not with the iPod because of the waves/radiation.

G: What else is better?

J: You feel comfier with paper. I like the real Bible best.

Here we have a child talking about ease of access, clear reading preferences, and knowledgeable engagement around reading, prompted by experiences with electronic reading.

In traditional reading classrooms, good teaching is associated with the teacher instilling a love of reading and creating the conditions for learners to experience the value of reading. It is also about teaching comprehension strategies and helping learners to understand and appreciate interesting and difficult texts. This may happen in a classroom with displays of posters about authors, new books, reading competitions, and so on, or by arranging for learners to have access to books at the library and on the Internet. In such conducive reading environments, the librarians and reading teachers are the ones who hold and communicate beliefs such as: “Read and you will live a rich life! Read and you’ll know! We need a nation of readers!” Such beliefs assume that the more you read, the more knowledgeable a reader you become. But, reading is not enough!

International studies on reading development and enhancement have shown the benefits of conversations about readings. Snow (2012) reports that the improved reading comprehension performance of learners in the United States (US) is a direct result of discussions around texts. Snow and Biancarosa (2003) report that collaborative reasoning is a meaningful instructional approach, confirmed by researchers such as Reninger and Wilkinson (2010) who showed that discussions promote a higher level of comprehension of literary texts. This implies that the activity of reading needs to be supplemented by talking about the reading text, as well as other readers’ interpretations, responses, and views. Similar studies clarified the importance of collective argumentation (Elbers & Streefland 2000), and of interactive teaching and reciprocal reading for the promotion of reading and independent learning from texts (Palincsar & Brown 2009).

Various authors have explored what Palincsar (2003:99) calls collaborative approaches to reading where constructing meaning is the goal. These include Reciprocal Teaching (RT), Questioning the Author, and Collaborative Reasoning. RT is a well-researched strategy, and involves summarising, questioning, clarifying and predicting – all strategies that add to knowledge building and improve criterion-referenced measures of text comprehension (Palincsar 2003:106). “Questioning the Author” is an approach developed by Beck and McKeown (2002) and researched by Anderson et al (2001) who looked into processes of collaborative reasoning to show the value of talking about texts (see also Palincsar & Brown 2009; Sweet & Snow 2003).

The focus of this article is on the problem of social media reading (SMR), i.e. reading of digital texts, as a growing part of school learners’ daily lives – to consider the question

97


“What is involved in SMR, and how may such media be used in school classrooms for reading development and improvement?” From the premise that active discussion/talk about a text is a necessary condition for reading development and comprehension, the purpose is to analyse literature on learning conversation methods in reading classrooms in order to clarify the implications and value of such methods for SMR. A conceptual analysis is offered of examples of conversation methods and how they can be applied to SMR.

The conceptualisation of SMR follows Coiro (2011) who distinguishes between off-line and online reading; Puente (2012) who talks about digital reading; and Huang, Chern and Lin (2009) who also use the terms “e-reading” and “online reading” in the context of language education.

2 ONLINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA READING – CHANGING PRACTICES OF READING

The impact of ICTs and social media on reading is being researched internationally (e.g. Alverman 2008; Liu 2005). The analyses by Coiro (2003; 2012) offer a comprehensive view of the ways in which the Internet is changing/reshaping reading. Coiro (2003) draws on a publication by the RAND Reading Study Group (2002) and describes how the Internet encourages a rethinking of reading and reading comprehension as encompassing “new literacies”; new literacies of online reading comprehension (Leu et al 2007). This involves broadening understandings of text, of reading activities, of the reader, and of the social contexts of reading (Coiro 2003). Electronic texts are a new form of text: they are web-based, typically non-linear, interactive and of multiple media forms which offer new opportunities for reading, but also pose new challenges for comprehension and meaning making. New literacies also involve broadening people’s understanding of reading activities – in terms of varied purposes, processes, and consequences of reading. This requires broadening our understanding of the reader and the cognitive capabilities, motivation and sense of self-efficacy, in new and different contexts of reading which goes beyond the traditional socio-cultural context of schooling to include cyberspace and unknown communities (see also the RAND Reading Study Group 2002).

The new literacies in ICT involve socially mediated ways of generating meaningful content through multiple modes of representation (e.g., language, imagery, sounds, embodied performances) to produce digital texts (e.g., blogs, wikis, zines, games, personal webpages) for dissemination in cyberspace (Alverman 2008). The study of online reading by Lui (2005) found that changes include more time spent on reading and the expansion of reading activities including browsing, scanning, keyword spotting, one-time reading, non-linear reading, and selective reading. Readers of electronic texts seem to spend less time on in-depth and concentrated reading. The practices of studying

98


printed texts like annotating and highlighting are also absent from online reading (Lui 2005).

Several studies have explored the impact of electronic and social media in school library programmes. The study by Ercegovac (2012) into the use of electronic media to motivate readers and instil a love of reading found that voluntary reading, and selection of preferred readings were beneficial. In addition, new roles of being creators, curators and consumers of texts help develop new information literacy skills. Click and Petit (2010) note that school learners already use social media, and they may be used in library instruction by incorporating them into library websites. From an international perspective, the viability of using social media also depends on government policies, with some countries having restrictions on how they are used in schools (Click & Petit 2010).

Gerber and Price (2011) note that various forms of ICTs influence reading. They refer to the value of videogames for adolescent writing and reading. In the case of interactive e-storybooks, Moody (2010) notes that there are benefits for not only vocabulary development, but also for comprehension. In cases of lower-quality e-storybooks, however, digital features such as animations and sounds unrelated to the story may be distracting.

In the electronic era, children spend much of their time reading text messages. Sweeney (2011) quotes studies which report children acknowledging/equating texting as reading. In addition, reading migration in the electronic era involves “newly enhanced books”, where in an e-book readers can click and go to other content as they read, with the perceived disadvantage that readers experience a lack of concentration.

From this cursory analysis of changes associated with the rapid development of ICTs and the growing use of SMR, it seems clear that opportunities exist for literacy and reading educators on two levels – not only to treat SMR as a distinct form of reading, but also to use electronic media to support off-line teaching of reading. To explore these opportunities further, it is important to consider how interactions around text may contribute to reading development.

3 APPROACHES TO CONVERSATIONS AROUND TEXTS AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO READING COMPREHENSION

Different approaches to the organisation of interactions around texts for purposes of reading comprehension have been described and researched since the initial studies by Palincsar on Reciprocal Teaching (Nystrand 2006). Reciprocal teaching was developed in the 1980s and has been well researched since, by Palincsar and colleagues

99


(see Palincsar & Brown 1984, 1986). It involves a systematic implementation of summarising, questioning, clarifying and predicting as activities related to a text. The key purpose of this approach is to develop metacognition and awareness of what the reader does to comprehend a text (Palincsar & Brown 1984).

Anderson and co-researchers worked on concepts of dialogic teaching as method to encourage interactions during literature discussions (see Reznitskaya et al 2009, 2012; Anderson et al 2001). Dialogic teaching works with questions requiring feedback, encouraging meta-level reflections by participants and giving lengthy, elaborate explanations. In so doing, participants contribute to collaborative construction of knowledge (Reznitskaya et al 2012). Dialogic learning has proved to be more efficacious than traditional literacy methods of teaching (Alfassi 2009). As an approach, it has been described by Doyle and Bramwell (2006) as relying on multiple readings and discussions in groups encouraging children to tell stories about the readings. In this regard, Reutzel and Larson (1995) talk about dialogical books, i.e. encouraging learners to use all four language modes (i.e. speaking, listening, writing, reading) to explore the topic of a book.

Anderson, Chin, Wagoner and Nguyen (1998) and Kim, Anderson, Nguyen-Jahiel and Archodidou (2007) have expanded research on collaborative reasoning as an approach to interactive learning in classrooms, similar to Mercer (2008) who argues for the importance of talk and the development of reading and understanding, and defining classroom talk as a social mode of thinking (Mercer 2004, 2008). Anderson et al’s (2001) research shows how learners’ ability to use arguments “snowball” from classroom discussions.

For Purdy (2008) collaborative talk in English language learning classrooms involves emphasising the personal and the social aspects of learning, which are enhanced by inviting conversation as meaningful talk about texts. Other forms of such interactions include story discussions (McIntyre 2007), literature groups and book clubs (Echevarria & McDonough 1995; Peterson & Eeds 1990), with benefits to learners who, for example, participate in English language learning (Iddings, Risko & Rampulla 2009).

Interactive approaches to teaching and learning in language and literacy classrooms draw strongly on Sociocultural Theory in conceptualising reading/literacy development as situational and contextual (Mercer 2004). But, as pointed out by Doehler (2002), Edwards (2006), Potter and Edwards (1999) and others, learning in interaction is more than cognitive activities in context. This point of view was explored by Doehler (2002) as regards the processes of mediation in social interaction in second language research – patterns of interaction are socially shaped, with all participants contributing.

In summary – various approaches have been developed by researchers to explore how learning in language and reading classrooms may be enhanced through forms of interaction. Some specific studies have actually documented how interactional methods specifically benefit reading comprehension (Soter et al 2008; Wolf, Crosson & Resnick

100


2005). The specific benefits quoted by Van der Westhuizen (2012), include opportunities to share experiences (see Fisher, Lapp & Wood, 2011; Mercer 2008); thinking together (see Dawes, Mercer & Wegerif 2004); and critical thinking (Ketch 2005). As such, reading classrooms are also characterised by teacher talk that “moves” learners to share knowledge (Wolf, Crosson & Resnick 2005). Typical of such (language) classrooms is that they display what Seedhouse (2004, 2005) calls an “interactional architecture”, where learners learn from more experienced others, requiring a certain interactional competence to benefit those who participate (Bowles & Seedhouse 2007).

4 LEARNING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT READINGS – APPROACHES AND PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE

In this section, the notion of learning conversations is put forward as a superordinate term referring to verbal interactions in education settings, conducted for purposes of learning. These are interactions that take place conversationally, meaning that they are authentic, once-off opportunities that involve turn taking, response preferences and repair actions (Van der Westhuizen 2012b). Sequences within such conversations serve purposes of clarification of requests, confirmation of views, as well as comprehension checks, and self-repetition (Van der Westhuizen 2012b).

Learning conversations may take various forms, as described by Magano, Mostert and Van der Westhuizen (2010). Conversation methods in reading classrooms work mainly with questions. They are inquiry oriented, and encourage participants to interact and exchange ideas in order to share understanding of meanings in the text (Magano et al 2010). Such a conversation pedagogy draws on traditions of interactions in society where talking and dialogue are used to interrogate and scrutinise knowledge through conversation (Magano et al 2010:7). A pedagogy of conversation also draws on social psychology which describes learning as intersubjective (Arminen 2006) and discursive (Potter 2010; Edwards 2006), and on assumptions that knowledge of ideas is developed through interaction (Arminen 2006; Scardamalia & Bereiter 2006). Such learning is situational and helps learners to develop their own meaning-making tools (Rogoff 2008; Vygotsky 1978).

The text by Magano et al (2010) describes various methods of learning conversations, to be considered by educators in various learning areas, but also relevant to language classrooms and the teaching of reading. To illustrate how the methods work and how they are applied to the teaching of reading, a selection of the methods will be briefly described. The purpose here is to consider the principles of practice underlying the methods selected. (The numbers, e.g. #3, refer to the numbering of conversation texts in Magano et al.)

101


#3 Excavating a story – using conversations to better understand personal experiences: With this method, the reading teacher would decide on a topic from a text, and request learners to choose stories of relevant personal experiences, related to the topic, to share. An example could be a reading about thunder storms in which case learners would be requested share their personal experiences of thunder storms. Learners would then also highlight a crucial moment in their story. Four or five stories would be shared in a group, and participants would be encouraged to ask questions: What was it like? Why was that a crucial moment? Imagine yourself in that person’s position. What could the experience mean to you? Explore the underlying principles: What touches you? What would be wise to say, think or do? (Magano et al 2010:36).

This method encourages learning in terms of deeper understanding of a text by means of examples of personal experiences. The emphasis on moments in personal accounts concretises the sharing and the conversation – participants may feel more at ease to converse, especially when they can identify with another person’s lived experiences.

#5 Provision – collecting resources for a conversation: This method starts with the choice of a topic and a reading about it. The teacher would start by asking learners: What provisions do we take with us when we deal with this topic? What provisions would be useful when we read and talk about this text? Provisions (i.e. resources) could include other readings, symbols or models/pictures we associate with the topic, and stories. Learners are asked to share these, and others are invited to use the provisions. Then they would read the text, and have a conversation about how the provisions would help each, individually, in the comprehension of the text. The conversation would develop a shared understanding of the text, and also reflect on the value of sharing and using provisions (Magano et al 2010:41).

This method makes the reading and interpretation of a text very much resource-based – participants learn that readers can draw on different resources, that these resources can be made public, and collectively contribute to an understanding of a text.

#9 Loosening the yoke – having conversations about authoritative texts: This method encourages conversation about difficult, intimidating texts. The teacher starts by selecting a text that carries a great deal of authority. Groups would read together and share interpretations; then discuss questions: What is the point of departure of the text? What are the assumptions, principles, values? Which are the alternative points of departure? Why does the text carry such authority? How does authority work? What space is there to deepen your ideas? Did this conversation help you grow? (Magano et al 2010:53).

This method encourages learning through conversation about the assumptions and authority of the author, and by considering alternative points of departure. The conversation is an inquiring one – participants talk together to come to shared understandings.

102


#16 The love of reading: This method requires the teacher to choose a text and encourage learners to do some writing before they come together. This is done by means of questions such as: What are the main points? How do I relate to the text? What was familiar to me? What did I find strange? What did I like about it? The conversation with the teacher and/or peers is about the written answers. Then, during the interaction, additional questions about possible other titles or questions to the author may be considered. The interaction is closed with the question: How can a conversation help you to make reading more fun? (Magano et al 2010:74).

This method encourages understanding of the text and learning from it in terms of personal views – the learners note their views and responses to the reading, discuss interpretations in written form and consider how their own views differ from those of others.

#17 Sharing a text – exploring different interpretations through conversation: This method starts with a text of interest to all participants. The emphasis is on conversations about differing interpretations. Learners select parts of the text for shared reading. Then questions are asked such as: What is the question the author is trying to answer? What is interesting about this question? Connect the text with a personal experience. Then the teacher moves to the next section, and repeats the process. The lesson closes by reflecting on what it was like to do shared reading and opening up for different interpretations (Magano et al 2010:76).

This method encourages learning in terms of similarities and differences in reading comprehension. Participants have to make inferences and distinguish between literal and inferential meanings (see Palincsar 2003). It works through the text in a systematic way, and allows interactions about differences in views.

#20 Exploring meaning: The focus of this method is on levels of interpretation. The teacher chooses a complex concept in a text. Learners are requested to share different interpretations, and note equivalents in different languages. Then they have to write down (in English, if that is the medium of teaching) the meanings of the equivalent words. These meanings from their home languages are then considered as interpretations of the complex concept. What interpretations emerge? What is the value of defining concepts in different languages? (Magano et al 2010:86).

This method encourages learning in terms of broadening and deepening the inter-pretations of a reading by means of other language equivalents. While the interaction is in English, participants explore the meanings of words in their own language – most often a method which contributes to equitable learning (see Van der Westhuizen 2012a).

The methods reported here have been chosen as illustration, and they have been chosen fairly randomly. Another 18 methods are described by Magano et al (2010), under headings such as Investigating habits (#13, on changing approaches to reading), Pursuing a definition (#21, conversing about the parts of definition in a text), Through

103


the hourglass (#18, relating, explaining, imaging and justifying personal experiences and moments relevant to a reading), The Chorus speaks (#22, talking about a text, but from a distance), and Izibongo – praise poems (#24, expressing admiration about a topic in a reading, and seeing how this adds to interpretations of text meanings).

From the cursory outline of examples of learning conversation methods, guiding principles of practice, relevant to the teaching of reading, may be derived. These are summarised in Table 1, with references to the methods described and the elevant supporting literature.

Table 1: Guiding principles of learning conversations in reading classrooms

Practice principle Example methods from Magano et al (2010)*

Supporting literature references

a. Interactions are structured around questions

3, 9, 16, 20 Beck and McKeown (2002); Palincsar and Brown (2009);

b. Engagement is reciprocal, varied, with learners also initiating conversations

5, 13, 16 Palincsar and Brown (2009); Dawes, Mercer and Wegerif (2004); McIntire (2007)

c. Active participation by all, “thinking together”, shared interpretations

17, 20 Palincsar (2003); Anderson et al (2001); Nystrand (2006); Kim et al (2007)

d. Interactions are inquiry-based, pursuing new, collective interpretations

3, 18, 20 Beck and McKeown (2002); Elbers and Streefland (2000)

e. Learning settings are authentic and draw on participant experiences and resources

13, 18 Palincsar and Brown (2009)

f. Interactions around texts are open to allow for ongoing discursive constructions of meaning

3, 16, 20 Chappell and Craft (2011); Doyle and Bramwell (2006)

*The numbers in this column refer to the conversation methods described higher up.

5 IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONVERSATION METHODS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA READING

Social media reading is conceived of as online reading of electronic texts in the context of social network programmes such as blogs, email, phone texting, Twitter, Facebook, etc. The intention here is to explore how reading comprehension in SMR may be strengthened and improved through learning conversations, i.e. settings where social media require reading and comprehension as medium, as well as in settings where the same media are used to converse about a reading (hard copy or e-text). From this analysis

104


some implications of the use of learning conversations by teachers and information literacy educators in settings of SMR may be considered:

a. Learning interactions in and around readings are structured around questions – this principle implies using questions as the reason for interactions. In SMR questions are used in asynchronous writings, such as emails, blogs – anyone can ask a question. This is valuable for the conversation, and the teacher may typically discuss the flow of questions, and in the classroom, allow questions to develop into more complicated ones. Threads of electronic conversations can be pursued, and the teacher as moderator/facilitator can remind participants to stay with one or more questions. Because of the flexibility of use and the possibility of spreading interactions over time, conversations can go in many directions, adding to interpretations. In the case of synchronous interactions, i.e. in real time and together, conversing/interacting around a question may have the same benefits as was pointed out in the examples from Magano et al (2010).

b. Learning conversations promote reading when engagements are reciprocal and varied, with learners also initiating conversations. Reciprocity in learning conversations is greatly enhanced in SMR. Unlike traditional reading teaching situations where the teacher designs and takes charge of the interactions, in SMR learners have relatively more space to raise their own questions.

c. Learning conversations require active participation by all, “thinking together” and shared interpretations. This principle is implemented quite decisively in traditional reading classrooms, with the teacher facilitating the process. In SMR, the choice to participate in a conversation about a reading requires of the learner to type a contribution after time spent on thinking, exploring (see Coiro 2011).

d. Interactions in and around readings are inquiry-based, pursuing new, collective interpretations. This principle is fairly easily implemented in SMR. Twitter and blog interactions, such as #theglobalclassroom and many others, go beyond the social purpose to explore issues. Reading and typing are the forms the conversation takes, and participation is often aimed at exchanging ideas to solve problems. A teacher may use these media as texts to talk about, or as vehicle for conversation about other texts.

e. Learning conversations enhance reading in authentic settings and when participants draw on personal experiences and resources/provisions. In SMR it may be assumed that reading is new, authentic, and occurs on a continuous basis. Of course the Internet comes with unlimited provisions, and the teacher

105


may plan for phases in a lesson where learners would be required to collect relevant sources before they start with a difficult reading.

f. Learning conversations encourage openness to new interpretations of readings, allowing for ongoing discursive constructions of meaning. SMR requires this kind of activity all the time. For example, Twitter interactions may follow specific strands of topics, with participants having the space to change the topic.

6 CONCLUSIONThe main argument in this article is that the teaching of reading may be enhanced through the use of social media and conversational interactions around them. The set of principles of practice which was derived from off-line reading research is relevant and can be considered for the enhancement of SMR. The effective use of SMR in classrooms would depend on the effective use of questions, active participation and collective contributions (Van der Westhuizen 2012a). Hopefully, conversations around readings can contribute to the emerging culture of “participating online literacies” – a space which cannot do without conversation (Avelrman 2008:18) and a motivation to read (Edmunds & Bauserman 2006).

REFERENCESAl-Deen, HSN & Hendricks, JA. 2012. Social media: usage and impact. Lanham, MD: Lexington

Books.Alfassi, M. 2009. The efficacy of a dialogic learning environment in fostering literacy. Reading

Psychology 30(6):539–563.Alvermann, DE. 2008. Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom

practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 52(1):8–19.Anderson, R, Chinn, C, Waggoner, M & Nguyen, K. 1998. Intellectually interesting story

discussions, in Osborn, J & Lehr, F (eds), Literacy of all: issues in teaching and learning. New York: Guilford Press:170–186.

Anderson, RC, Nguyen-Jahiel, K, McNurlen, B, Archodidou, A, Kim, S, Reznitskaya, A & Gilbert, L. 2001. The snowball phenomenon: spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction 19(1):1–46.

Arminen, I. 2006. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, in Braynd, CD & Peck, DL (eds), 21st century sociology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. http://www.sage-ereference.com/sociology/Article_n59.html (Accessed 14 April 2010).

Baran, E & Thompson, A. 2010. Extending classroom interaction to the cyberspace with Facebook, Moodle and Blogger. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED514647.pdf#page=21 (Accessed 1 August 2012).

Beck, IL & McKeown, MG. 2002. Questioning the author: making sense of social studies. Educational Leadership 59(3):44–47.

106


Berg, MA. 2011. On the cusp of cyberspace: adolescents’ online text use in conversation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(7):485–493.

Bowles, H & Seedhouse, P. 2007. Conversation analysis and language for specific purposes. New York: Peter Lang.

Chappell, K & Craft, A. 2011. Creative learning conversations: producing living dialogic spaces. Educational Research 53(3):363–385.

Click, A & Petit, J. 2010. Social networking and Web 2.0 in information literacy. International Information & Library Review 42(2):137–142.

Coiro, J. 2003. Reading comprehension on the Internet: expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher 56(6). http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/RT/2-03_column/index.html (Accessed 23 November 2012).

Coiro, J. 2011. Talking about reading as thinking: modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory Into Practice 50(2):107–115.

Coiro, J. 2012. The new literacies of online reading comprehension: future directions. Educational Forum 76(4):412–417.

Dawes, L, Mercer, N & Wegerif, R. 2004. Thinking together: a programme of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8–11. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds.

Doehler, SP. 2002. Mediation revisited: the interactive organization of mediation in learning environments. Mind, Culture, and Activity 9(1):22–42.

Doyle, BG & Bramwell, W. 2006. Promoting emergent literacy and social: emotional learning through dialogic reading. Reading Teacher 59(6):554–564.

Edmunds, KM. & Bauserman, KL. 2006. What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. Reading Teacher 59(5):414–424.

Edwards, D. 2006. Discourse, cognition and social practices: the rich surface of language and social interaction. Discourse Studies 8(1):41–49.

Elbers, E & Streefland, L. 2000. Collaborative learning and the construction of common knowledge. European Journal of Psychology 15(4):479–490.

Ercegovac, Z. 2012. To hook one another on reading. Knowledge Quest 40(3):36–39.Fisher, D, Lapp, D & Wood, K. 2011. Reading for details in online and printed text: a prerequisite

for deep reading. Middle School Journal 42(3):58–63.Gerber, HR & Price, DP. 2011. Twenty-first century adolescents, writing, and new media:

meeting the challenge with game controllers and laptops. English Journal 101(2):68–73.Huang, H, Chern, C & Lin, C. 2009. EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and

comprehension of texts: an exploratory study. Computers & Education 52(1):13–26.Iddings, ACD, Risko, VJ & Rampulla, MP. 2009. When you don’t speak their language: guiding

English-language learners through conversations about text. Reading Teacher 63(1):52–61.Ketch, A. 2005. Conversation: the comprehension connection. Reading Teacher 59(1):8–13.Kim, IH, Anderson, RC, Nguyen-Jahiel, K & Archodidou, A. 2007. Discourse patterns during

children’s collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences 16(3):333–370.

107


Leu, DJ, Kinzer, CK, Coiro, J & Cammack, D. 2004. Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies, in Ruddell, RB & Unrau, R (eds), Theoretical models and processes of reading. 5th ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association: 1568–1611. http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/leu (Accessed 29 November 2012).

Leu, DJ, Zawilinski, L, Castek, J, Banerjee, M, Housand, B, Liu, Y & O’Neil, M. 2007. What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension, in Rush, L, Eakle, J & Berger, A (eds), Secondary school literacy: what research reveals for classroom practices, [S.L.]: National Council of Teachers of English:37–68.

Liu, Z. 2005. Reading behavior in the digital environment: changes in reading behaviour over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation 61(6):700–712.

Magano, D, Mostert, P and Van der Westhuizen, G. 2010. Learning conversations: the value of interactive learning. Johannesburg: Heinemann.

McIntyre, E. 2007. Story discussion in the primary grades: balancing authenticity and explicit teaching. Reading Teacher 60(7):610–620.

Mercer, N. 2004. Sociocultural discourse analysis. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1:137–168.Mercer, N. 2008. Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development

51:90–100.Moody, AK. 2010. Using electronic books in the classroom to enhance emergent literacy skills

in young children. Journal of Literacy and Technology 11(4):22–52.Nystrand, M. 2006. Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading

comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English 40(4):392–412.Palincsar, AS. 2003. Collaborative approaches to comprehension instruction, in Sweet, AP &

Snow, CE (eds), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press:99–114.Palinscar, AS & Brown, AL. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1(2):117–175.Palincsar, AS & Brown, AL. 1986. Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from

text. Reading Teacher 39:771–777.Palincsar, AS & Brown, AL. 2009. Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from

text, in Lapp, D & Fisher, D (eds), Essential readings on comprehension, [S.L.]: International Reading Association:101–106.

Peterson, R & Eeds, M. 1990. Grand conversations: literature groups in action. New York: Scholastic.

Potter, J & Edwards, D. 1999. Social representations and discursive psychology: from cognition to action. Culture & Psychology 5(4):447–458.

Puente, K. 2012. Empowering students with digital reading. District Administration 48(5):38–42.

Purdy, J. 2008. Inviting conversation: meaningful talk about texts for English language learners. Literacy 42(1):44–51.

RAND Reading Study Group. 2002. Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension. http://www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/reading/readreport.html (Accessed 24 November 2012).

108


Reninger, KB & Wilkinson, IAG. 2010. Using discussions to promote striving readers’ higher level comprehension of literary texts, in Collins, JL & Gunning, TG (eds), Building struggling students’ higher level literacy: practical ideas, powerful solutions. [S.L.]: International Reading Association:57–83.

Reutzel, DR & Larson, CM. 1995. Dialogical books: connecting content, conversation, and composition. Reading Teacher 49(2):98–102.

Reznitskaya, A. 2012. Dialogic teaching: rethinking language use during literature discussions. Reading Teacher 65(7):446–456.

Reznitskaya, A, Kuo, LJ, Clark, AM, Miller, B, Jadallah, M, Anderson, RC & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. 2009. Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education 39(1):29–48.

Rogoff, B. 2008. Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship, in Hall, K, Murphy, P & Soler, J (eds), Pedagogy and practice: culture and identities. Los Angeles, CA: Sage:58–74.

Routman, R. 2000. Conversations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Routman, R. 2002. Teacher talk. Educational Leadership 59(6):32–35.Scardamalia, M & Bereiter, C. 2006. Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology, in

Sawyer, K (ed), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press:97–115.

Seedhouse, P. 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom: a conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Seedhouse, P. 2005. Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching 38(04):165–187.

Snow, CE. 2012. Language, literacy and the needs of the multilingual child. Keynote presentation. Umalusi Conference. Standards in Education and Training: the challenge, Pretoria.

Snow, CE & Biancarosa, G. 2003. Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: what do we know and where do we go from here? New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Snow, CE & Juel, C. 2008. Teaching children to read: what do we know about how to do it?, in Snowling, MJ & Hulme, C (eds), The science of reading: a handbook. Oxford: Blackwell:501–520.

Soter, A, Wilkinson, IA, Murphy, PK, Rudge, L, Reninger, K & Edwards, M. 2008. What the discourse tells us: talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 47(6):372–391.

Sweeney, JM. 2011. From pages to pixels: cover story. America 205(2):20–22.Sweet, AP & Snow, CE (eds). 2003. Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford

Press.Van der Westhuizen, GJ. 2011. Leergesprekke in hoër onderwys: ‘n Herwaardering. Litnet

Academic 8(3):392–410.Van der Westhuizen, GJ. 2012a. Learning equity in a university classroom. South African Journal

of Higher Education 26(3):623–637.Van der Westhuizen, GJ. 2012b. The conversational dimensions of classroom and social media

learning interactions. Communitas 17:137–160.

109


Vygotsky, LS. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, JA. 2001. Classroom conversations: opportunities to learn for ESL students in mainstream classrooms. Reading Teacher 54(8):750–757.

Wolf, MK, Crosson, AC & Resnick, LB. 2005. Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology 26:27–53.

Social media reading

Documents

Transcript of Social media reading