Literacy in a digital age: a challenge for language teachers? Turku Finland August 2016

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


  • 3rd Baltic Sea 17th Nordic LiteracyConference

    1416 August 2016 Turku/bo, Finland

    Making meaning literacy in action

    Jeroen Clemens Literacy in a digital age: a challenge for

    language teachers?;

  • 1. Language Teacher

    2. Researcher New Literacies / Online literacy

    3. Consultant/ writer/ speaker

    Teacher trainer

    Head Language department


    Jeroen Clemens

  • ability to understand, evaluate, useand engage with written texts toparticipate in society, to achieveones goals, and to develop onesknowledge and potential (OECD 2013)

  • Print media


    Single text

    Fixed structure




    Clear author

    Online media

    Non-lineair Hypertext

    Connected texts

    Multiple structures

    Multimodal Multi Media

    Flexible / Changing


    Not always clear author

    Not only written texts

  • offline 1. Traditional print reading

    2. Multi document reading: analysis & synthesis

    3. Reading online: search, evaluate, synthesis & communicate

    Expand definition Literacy

    Expand PedagogyCho & Afflerbach, 2010

  • Digital natives are competent readers online?

  • New & aditional skills and strategies needed

    Many students are not competent: see reading list


    Digital natives

    Diataal (Haquebord)

    ORCA Nederlands (Clemens)

    eigen onderzoek

    zoeken evalueren synthese







    Additional competencies

    Co Ev



    Traditional Reading test

    ORCA Dutch version Clemens

  • Baseline study: Language Teachers Secondary Schools (online, 309)

    Perceptions Attitudes & believes Knowledge & Skills Motivation & Needs

  • 63% perceives online texts different from offline texts

    84% online reading comprehension asks for new skills and strategies

    90% students need to learn online reading comprehension skills and

    (86%) they need education in online reading comprehension

  • 73% current curriculum is not sufficient for preparing students for online reading comprehension.

    75% online reading comprehension must be included in the curriculum, the common core standards (65%) and in text books / learning materials (87%).

    There is less agreement (37%) whether online reading comprehension must become a part of the national assessment program of Dutch or on the more pedagogical question if online reading comprehension must become a separate course in textbooks (32%).

  • 70% think there is not enough attention for online reading comprehension in their current teaching materials.

    17% include online reading comprehension in their teaching.

    7% develop lessons or teaching materials for online reading comprehension

    84% dont collaborate with colleagues on this topic (84%).

  • 10% think school finds online literacy important.

    15% positive when looking at their department (15%).

    18% see initiatives happening at department level

    but its a tough question: a lot of teachers are neutral on this item (school: 33%, department: 50%).

  • 71% say they need professional development to be able to teach online literacy

    This has top priority

  • Top down 5-10 National Standards, Assessment,

    Publishers/Textbooks, Teacher training institutes; accessible knowledge

    Implement in teacher training programs 3-5

    Bottom up/ now own initiatives: school and teacher initiatives

    and collaboration, teacher development teams, conferences, teacher training institutes

  • Relate own curriculum/ learning goalsConnect, recognisable terminology: Lets work on

    Critical Reading Plus, expand search strategies to online texts

    Target language teachers first & earlyadopters cross curriculum

    Work in teacher development teams Co-create / use each others materials

    regional and nationallyShare and collaborate online

  • Afflerbach, P., & Cho, . Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy, Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension. New York: Routledge.

    Cho, B.-Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2015). Reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6)

    Castek, J., & Coiro, J. (2015). Understanding What Students Know. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7)

    Donald J Leu, J., McVerry, J. G., O'Byrne, I., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo, H., et al. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy andlearning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1).

    Leu, D. J., Kulikowich, J. M., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., Liu, C., Cui, W., et al. (2014). The ORCA Project: Designing Technology-based Assessments for Online Research, Comprehension, And Communication. American Educational Research Conference. Philidelphia.

    Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with Common Core State Standards. In L. B. Gambrell & S. B. Neuman, Reading instruction in the age of common core standards. Newark, DE: IRA.

    OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 Results: Students On Line (Vol. VI, p. 395). OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264112995-en

    OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I, Revised edition), PISA, OECD Publishing.



    Download on