RUNNING HEAD: CRITICAL THINKING IN RESPONSE TO DIGITAL LITERACIES Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies Neil Klein Vanderbilt University Peabody College 9/15/11 Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 2 Abstract Technology has changed the way we read. The expanding world of digital literacies has brought about new challenges that will be presented and discussed in this review, most notably in relation to critical thinking skills. The 21st Century Workforce Commission (2000) suggested that “the current and future health of America’s 21st century economy depends directly on how broadly and deeply Americans reach a new level of literacy – ‘21st century literacy”’. The digital literacy skills identified by various 21st century consortiums include proficiencies such as basic print literacy, scientific, economic, technological, visual, information, and multicultural literacies as well as global awareness (NCREL, 2003). What makes skills and literacies “new” is how they mobilize very different kinds of values and priorities and sensibilities than the literacies we are familiar with (Lankshear & Knobel (2007). As teachers and educators, we need to expand the definition of literacies, they can no longer be thought of simply as words and symbols on paper. The new literacies for the 21st century can be succinctly defined as follows: The new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs include the skills, strategies, and dispositions necessary to successfully use and adapt to the rapidly changing information and communication technologies and contexts that continuously emerge in our world and influence all areas of our personal and professional lives. These new literacies allow us to use the Internet and other ICTs to identify important questions, located information, critically evaluate the usefulness of that information, synthesize information to answer those questions, and then communicate the answers to others (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack, 2004). What is “critical thinking” in response to (new) literacies? An essential tool of inquiry; purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. ... (www.netnet.org/students/student%20glossary.htm) …….. is the art of reflecting and evaluating our conscious understanding and ways of thinking with the hope of improving them. (academic.wsc.edu/edc/ncate/ncate_institutional_report/definitions/) Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 3 The four domains of education: Learner, Learning Environment, Curriculum and Teaching Strategies, and Assessment are looked at from a variety of perspectives in order to get a better understanding of ways in which educators can help students think critically when it comes to digital literacies. In addition, ideas will be brought forth and discussed in regards to changes needed to bring about the reemergence of these critical thinking skills. Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 4 Learners and Learning Fact: Book reading by adults and youth of all ages, races, income, and education levels is declining (National Endowment for the Arts [NEA], 2004, 2007). Fact: Reading scores drop and voluntary reading rates diminish as children move from childhood to late adolescence (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2005; NEA, 2007). Fact: A recent survey indicates that young people (ages 15-19) read only six minutes per weekday for pleasure but spend 50 minutes each day playing games or using a computer (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Fact: Youth are engaged in a digital culture – 9 in 10 American teens between the ages of 12 and 17 are Internet users (Lenhardt, Madden, Rankin McGill, & Smith, 2007). It is important to consider how youths’ literacy, learning, and identity practices are both shaped by and shape the interactions they have in online spaces (Jensen, 2003). Knowing this can also help educators understand, and cater to, the learning needs of students in regards to both on and offline environments. Learning to effectively use and adapt to technological innovations is a skill that will serve youths well in the 21st century (Black, 2009). One challenge for online readers lies in the composition of the webpage: Where does the reader first look on the screen and where does that lead him or her? (Rowsell & Burke, 2009). Components of digital literacy are: Learning to learn, ‘study skills’ for a digital age, for which learning outcomes are often defined in terms of: reflection, action planning, self-evaluation, self-analysis, self-management (time, etc.). Academic practice (an alternative conceptualization of general learning skills), for which learning outcomes are often defined in terms of: comprehension, reading/apprehension, organization, analysis, synthesis, argumentation, problem solving, research, inquiry, academic writing. Information literacy, for which learning outcomes are often defined in terms of: identification, accession, organization, evaluation, interpretation, analysis, synthesis, application. Media literacy (also ‘visual’, ‘graphic’, ‘audio’, ‘filmic’ etc. literacy), for which learning outcomes are often defined in terms of critical reading and creative production. ICT/computer literacy, which is very variously defined, and often in terms of technologies that are already fading fro use, but some learning outcomes might include: keyboard skills, use of capture technologies, use of analysis tools, use of presentation tools, use of social tools, personalization, navigation, adaptivity, agility, confidence. (Sharpe & Beetham, 2010). Some scholars in the field (of digital literacies) suggest that digital reading involves a different logic and set of practices governed by multimodality. In this context, multimodality is defined as an Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 5 understanding of different modes of communication (visual, acoustic, spatial) working together without one being dominant. Students may use available designs in linguistic, gestural, visual, and spatial modes, and in turn redesign it however they see fit to make it more meaningful (Rowsell & Burke, 2009). Such a wide variety of digital media also has the advantage of catering to all types of learning styles and levels (struggling readers, ELL students, oral learners, visual learners, etc.). This designing process can be described as one that “transforms knowledge by producing new constructions and representations of reality” (The New London Group, 1996). Digital texts offer many ways for readers to experience the reading process. Furthermore, adolescents need a critical awareness of the semiotics of language, (i.e., language as design), which is essential to the critical understanding of the composition and production of digital texts (Rowsell & Burke, 2009). In a digital age, learners need to practice and experiment with different ways of enacting their identities, and adopt subject positions through different social technologies and media (Beetham & Oliver, 2010). When reading online, a reader performs different “comprehending selves” when they read across online texts (Tierney, 2006). These selves represent the plural nature that reading online affords and demands (Wiszniewski & Coyne, 2002). Flexibility and purposively marshaling the comprehension strategies that accompany the stances of these various reading selves, readers become critics of the veracity of information online, aesthetes of sudden fiction and online poetry slams, searchers for the minutiae of media star trivia, and synthesizers and linkers of disparate people, information, and events (Hartman, Morsink, &Zheng). This pluralism is instrumental in helping students build not only comprehension skills, but critical thinking skills as well. First, critical practices involve two generic components: analysis and evaluation. A critical orientation implies judging, comparing or evaluating on the basis of careful analysis. Second, critical pedagogy and critical literacy engage students and teachers collaboratively in making explicit the socially constructed character of knowledge, language and literacy, and asking in whose interests particular ‘knowledges’ and textual practices are constructed, legitimated and given privileged status within education (Lankshear & Knobel, 2002). Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 6 With a drastic increase in the use of technology in the classroom, educators have seen a decline in the way students think critically about, and respond to, what is being read – most notably relating to new literacies. Children around the globe have ‘entered an enduring and passionate love affair with the computer …. and educators must address the question of how the relationship between children and computers affects learning. Understanding this relationship will be crucial to our ability to shape the future (Papert, 1993). Today’s readers are immersed in multimodal experiences and, consequently, have a keen awareness of the possibility of combining modes and media to receive and communicate messages (Larson, 2009) When Deng Xiao Ping was asked to allow the people of China to access the Internet, he responded that he would like first to meet with the president of the Internet Corporation. “There is no Internet Corporation,” his adviser answered/ “Well, then who is in charge of it?” Deng asked. “No one,” the adviser answered. That’s just it. Anyone can place information online, no matter what its accuracy or content. Although that empowers individuals to post their own content online, it’s also a warning that we need to lead students to critically and responsibly choose and evaluate what they find. (Burke, 1998). Technology (the internet) has made it too easy for students to find information. We know that most learners read only the first page of results returned to them by a Google search, have little idea how to evaluate information for relevance, accuracy or authority (Williams & Rowlands, 2007) and are generally uncritical about messages offered to them via online media (Ziegler, 2007). In a review of research on learning on the Internet, Kuiper et al. (2005) found that students skim Web sites, often engaging in answer-grabbing techniques, even when the task calls for a more thoughtful and sustained approach. Research on comprehension on the Internet suggests that while students enjoy using the Internet, they encounter difficulties with all aspects of Internet inquiry and new literacies processes (Dalton & Proctor, 2008). Much more needs to be done in making sure students have the skills necessary to use digital technologies with a deeper understanding. With the abundance of online information comes the need for students to critically evaluate the source and the author’s intended message/viewpoint. It is vital that the students consider many Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 7 questions while gathering information on line, such as: Where does the information come from? What is the author’s intent? Who benefits from the publication of this information? Technological change always results in winners and losers. Without critically thinking about these questions, students may use the information they find out of context, or worse yet, copy directly from on-line sources. Issues of plagiarism are compounded where cyberpapers and digital resources abound. Students roam the Internet, often finding inappropriate content of suffering from information overload (Postman, 1993). Given the abundance of material on-line, students need to learn to slow down and think critically about what they find. Methods need to be put in place to gauge this critical understanding (see appendix A). At the same time, most schools (if not all) try to control what the students can access via the Internet (blocking sites deemed inappropriate). Access to the Internet outside of school does not offer this filtering. This lack of control ups the literacy ante, requiring that students learn to be critical consumers – to deconstruct messages, to identify bias, to ask whose voice is represented, whose is not, and to what end? (Dalton & Proctor, 2008). Critical consumers are also producers of their own messages, skillfully manipulating tools, text, and media with a heightened awareness of agency, audience, and purpose (Hobbs, 2006). At the same time, semantic technologies are accelerating an underlying trend for knowledge work to be distributed among human and non-human agents (search engines, data mining applications, etc.) in complex networks of expertise (Cliff et al. 2009). If some of the more routine tasks of research, for example, can be carried out by intelligent search engines, human researchers can focus on developing higher level skills such as those involving critical evaluation an judgment. An important aspect of literacy becomes the capacity to work with expert, non-expert and non-human others, and to deal with hybrid knowledge (Beetham & Oliver, 2010). Learners do not learn from technology; they learn from thinking about what they are doing. Focus has to be placed on learning with the technology rather than learning from or about the Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 8 technology (Kajder, 2003). Much more of this type of meaning-making practice needs to take place. Means and Olson (1997) go on to state “Technology can help to make students’ thinking processes more visible to the teacher.” In addition, McKenzie (2000) writes that students need to become “infotectives,” capable of asking good questions about data in order to convert the data into information and eventually into insight. One of the most effective tools in this regard is the WebQuest. WebQuests motivate student learners by asking a central question that honestly needs answering (Kajder, 2003). Tom March (2000) states that “when students are asked to understand, hypothesize, or problem-solve an issue that confronts the real world, they face an authentic task, not something that only carries meaning in a school classroom.” This type of activity requires the student to critically evaluate the central question being asked, the path chosen in solving/answering the question, and the resources used to aid in completing the task. Technology can support students’ acquisition of higherorder thinking and problem-solving skills in a number of ways (Barron & Goldman, 1994). At one level, students’ use of technology as a tool in school projects contributes to the authenticity of the projects, because technology pervades much of society today (Sheingold, 1991). For example, it is realistic to expect students to use desktop publishing software to produce a class newspaper, a spreadsheet to develop a budget for a class project, and telecommunications to share information with students from other geographic areas (Barron & Goldman, 1994). Technology can motivate students to attempt harder tasks and to take more care in crafting their work (Means & Olson, 1994). In addition, technology can be customized to aid in the building of skills in all students, regardless of their level or background. Technology also allows for co-operative learning using computer conferencing. Computer conferencing is an ideal tool for collaborative or co-operative learning. It’s an electronic environment with various ‘areas’ set aside for small group work, large group work, socializing and resources (Maier, Barnett, Warren, & Brunner, 1998). This type of learning environment enables students to take Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 9 ownership, and some control, over the work they do. Co-operative learning is geared toward process rather than product learning. The reflective skills that digital leaners exhibit – attending to their peers’ input, reflecting on their own outpour, responding to feedback – are also vital to make them fully rounded, competent members of the education community. Once honed, these reflective skills will enable students to adapt and develop their academic output, experimenting with when and how o take risks (Walker, Jameson, & Ryan, 2010). Learning Environment Over the last decade or so, there has been pressure on schools to equip classrooms with the latest computers and software. Simply supplying this equipment is not enough – teachers need to undertake training in order to use this equipment to its full advantage (time is something most teachers don’t have an excess of). Due to this lack of additional training, most students don’t take full advantage of what this technology has to offer. An unexpected finding in current research (Cuban, 2001) holds that even when equipment is made available, students aren’t using it to extend, enrich, and enhance understanding. They use computers in schools to complete assignments, play games, explore CD-ROM’s to find information, and conduct Internet searches (Kajder, 2003). To further this, simply bringing this equipment into the classroom has a tendency not to change the curriculum, it simply maintains what is already being done. Teachers must learn not only the ways to work with equipment but also the skills for facilitating learning in a technology-rich, constructivist learning environment (Kajder, 2003). In addition, resources for technical support must also be in place. Much more needs to be done in order to take full advantage of this equipment in a manner that allows the students to immerse themselves critically in all that the technology has to offer. As English teachers, we are enraptured by the printed word, and computers paired with the Internet and hypertext are revolutionizing how readers think, process, and understand information (Kajder, 2003). The following chart summarizes the ideal culmination of technology in an academic setting. 10 Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies Professional devolopment Technical support Effective use of technolgoy Access Funtionality Requirements for Effective Use of Technology (David, 1994) Literacy practices themselves are changing. Writing has moved from a paper based to a largely screen based medium (Kress, 2003), while texting – sometimes seen as a hybrid form between writing and transcribed speech – has arguably accelerated the casualization of the written word (Beetham & Oliver, 2010). Whereas previously students learned through the formal absorption of authoritative knowledge transmitted didactically in lectures, John Seeley Brown (2002) suggest that student learning is beginning to be more ‘discover based’, linked to the ready availability of ‘infotainment’ in masses of web-based information and entertainment resources. These new digital literacies dictate a new learning and thinking style – not only for the students, but for teachers as well. Bridging the gap between standard school literacy (paper, pencil, print) and what students experience outside of school (Internet, web technology, etc.) needs to become a priority for all educators. Learning theories are evolving to accommodate and frame new ways in which we may now be learning as a result of the rapid explosion in e-learning technological developments in the twenty-first century (Siemens, 2005). Siemens goes on to state that hehaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism, which he classifies as ‘the three broad learning theories most often utilized in the creation of instructional environments’, are now giving way to a new learning theory: Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 11 ‘connectivism’. In addition, Siemens argues that new kinds of group learning are evolving, in which skills of connecting with other people in digital networks are increasingly important. The modern classroom needs to be restructured in a manner that allows for more studentcentered learning (leading to higher level thinking and problem solving). The teacher’s role is shifting from lecturer to that of facilitator. In so doing, students have more opportunity to interact with each other as well as with the teacher. Technology tends to support teachers in becoming coaches rather than dispensers of knowledge. In classrooms where students spend large blocks of time using technology to design, compose, or solve complex problems, lecturing by the teacher is minimized (Means & Olson, 1994). In some instances, technology can simulate a real-world situation that is not feasible for youngsters to explore otherwise (for example, space travel) or one in which complex episodes must be revisited or examined for information in a way that real-time activity does not allow. Thus, technology affords opportunities for making teaching and learning more efficient, more applicable to real-world problems, and more accessible to students with different backgrounds than the materials and instructional approaches of the traditional classroom can afford (Fishman & Duffy, 1992). Literacy is now defined as “the ability to use the most powerful cultural tools available for making, communication, and enacting meaning.” The change that this demands in the culture of our classrooms is enormous (Wilhelm, 2000). How do we, as educators create classrooms that are open to what Lankshear and Knobel (2007) referred to as “ethos stuff” of new literacies. This might involve creating classroom environments that emphasize inquiry-based, participatory forms of learning in which students are encouraged to explore alternative interpretations of literature and classroom materials. Activities would, of course, require expert guidance by teachers’ however, in keeping with the ethos of new literacies and 21st-century proficiencies, they also would involve a great deal of collaborative learning among students and would stress the importance of accessing, evaluating, and Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 12 integrating knowledge across available on- and offline sources. Such an approach presents an alternative to the “teacher as authority” model and allows students to build on their existing competencies, consider the validity of multiple perspectives, and enact powerful identities as both teachers and learners (Black, 2009). This type of learning environment also encourages students to delve deeper into the work they do while thinking of how the work extends beyond the classroom (to real world situations and uses). The essence of the Internet is how computers send data to each other – over various carriers, such as telephone lines, cable TV wires, and satellite channels. The data can be text, e-mail messages, sounds, images, or software programs (Berners-Lee, 1997). A classroom or school equipped with the Internet allows students to immediately have access to “an increasing network of people: writers, great thinkers, parents, community members, and specialists” (Kajder, 2003). According to Lenhart and Simon (2001), more than 98 percent of U.S. public schools have some kind of Internet access for students. One of the most prevalent new literacies is that of hypertext. This can be defined simply as a set of documents of any kind (images, text, charts, tables, video or audio clips) connected to one another by links (Murray, 2001). These links allow for a non-linear approach to reading. Instead of the traditional paragraph (linear progression), reading with hypertext gives the reader the opportunity to construct his or her own pathway through the text (and multimodal components). In doing so, the reader determines what pieces of information are important, going back to the idea that the author’s message needs to be considered in determining the validity of the chosen information. Hypertext has the potential to empower student readers; however, it also has the potential to become an indiscernible maze that mystifies and confuses readers (Kajder, 2003). In order to successfully navigate Hypertext, students must be able to think critically and holistically about the interaction – this type of reading requires a new non-linear way of thinking (a skill which must be learned). Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 13 Podcasts are also becoming prevalent both in the classroom and in society as a whole. A podcast is a series of digital media files that are released episodically and often downloaded through web syndication (Wikipedia, 2011). The explanation goes on to state that the word (podcast) replaced webcast in common use with the success of the iPod and its role in the rising popularity and innovation of web feeds. A podcast is one of several Web 2.0 digital social-networking tools, including blogs, YouTube, and Facebook, that provide platforms for the creation and sharing of user-generated content, often by means of portable media players, such as iPods and MP3 players (Smythe & Neufeld, 2010). As this type of technology is prevalent in students’ lives outside of school, it is necessary to incorporate them into students’ classroom lives as a means of engaging them in learning new content. The process of converting written text to that of a digital recording allows the student to identify and correct errors in the writing, as well as give them a sense of the layout and flow of the text. This type of project also tends to be more collaborative (peer work), thereby giving classmates the opportunity to offer not only their opinions, but grammatical corrections as well – hearing this type of input from peers tends to be more beneficial than that coming from a teacher. Although experiences with more varied texts in the classroom is also necessary, this extended practice in critical reading and writing of their own and peers’ narratives supported the students to read and write to redundancy (Ball, 2002) and thus to acquire the depths of experience, confidence, and learning with print narrative that the required for academic success (Neufeld & Toohey, 2008). In Literacy Learning in Networked Classrooms, Mary McNabb (2006) identified three ways in which the Internet can provide curricular benefits (1) designing Internet-based activities to help meet the diverse needs of students by engaging them through personal interest, (2) customizing teachinglearning cycles in ways that motivate students, and (3) fostering self-directed leaning (Rowsell & Burke, 2009). Incorporating these (and other) strategies is vital in re-engaging today’s students as well as a means of encouraging higher-level critical thinking skills. Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 14 Curriculum and Teaching Strategies Before introducing a novel to a group of language arts students, teachers make sure the students have the skills necessary to understand and respond critically to what they read. There is a tendency, however, to let students engage with technology without these skills. Why is this so? More importantly, how can this possibly benefit the students? In order to construct challenging curriculum- and standards-based activities that effectively integrate technology into English instruction, teachers need to work as instructional designers (Kajder, 2003). One such way to do so is to use innovative programs that pair teachers with tech-savvy students who work to maintain the hardware and network needs of the classroom, freeing teacher time for instructional design and student assessment (Kajder, 2003). The average English teacher is still teaching reading using traditional texts, the printed word as found in a standard text, and applying this to the reading of digital texts. When one comes to understand the design inherent in digital texts, one comes closer to bridging this gap between the digital realm of literacy and the traditional. More importantly, without this understanding, educators are only scratching the surface of their students’ learning capacities (Rowsell & Burke, 2009). When thinking of new literacies, an educator cannot simply use old skills with the new technologies. A new pedagogy needs to be constructed considering critical thinking, meaning making, and communication. Progressing from paper based projects to those that incorporate the Internet should be a gradual process – slowly introducing aspects of new literacies so as not to overwhelm students. For example, in a study conducted in a Singaporean high school, a teacher made the following progression. The teacher started with literacy activities that focused on reading advertisements in brochures and newspapers, followed by designing tasks that allowed her students to produce brochures to promote school programs and events. These literacy activities engaged the students in interacting with print-based multimodal tests. The next step was to incorporate reading moving multimodal texts (viewing videos) and finally projects that involved designing multimedia productions using software like Flash Macromedia and MediaStage (a 3D animated learning environment that allows users to create different genres such as short films) (Tan & Guo, 2010). Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 15 While it is necessary to incorporate new literacies into the language arts curriculum, there are many things to consider. In regards to hypertext, who controls what is read? How does the reader know how much is enough (or to much) to read? Is the order of what is read important (why/why not)? As there is no beginning, middle, or end when it comes to hypertext, how does the reader make sense of what they are exposed to? Navigating through hypertext can take an already ambiguous text and load the reading experience past the understanding of student readers (Kajder, 2003). Kajder goes on to tell us that students need tools for determining how to navigate text, unpack and comprehend meaning, and figure out how they got to that text in the first place. The use of hypertext should not be taught to students at the expense of traditional texts – the two should be complimentary. We live in a hypertextual world and must prepare our students to live in one. This doesn’t mean that literature is dead, or that we won’t read novels or poetry – it just means that these arts will exist in a new writing space, with new possibilities and permutations, sometimes in conjunction with art and video and sound (Wilhelm, 2000). In hypertext, sequential reading is supported by nonlinear jumps to alternative idea caches, with inevitable repercussions for comprehension (Gilster, 1997). In constructing lessons that allow the students to use digital literacies, the teacher needs to set a stringent balance in regards to student’s outcome. Too much discovery can lead to wasted instructional time and loss of student focus and understanding. Too much control leads to students’ working down a prescribed path, producing confined work (Kajder, 2003). To understand the complexities of reading online, teachers need to understand how the reading of linear print text forms differs from the reading of digital texts. Digital texts depend more readily on the design and representation of language and thus require a semiotic understanding on the part of the reader. This means that reading content online requires a repertoire of skills, from interpreting visual clues, to mastering the nuances of subtext, to following ideas in a nonlinear fashion, to decoding of Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 16 simple reading (Rowsell & Burke, 2009). All of this needs to be taken into account when designing curriculum. Rosenblatt (1996) explains that through the medium of words, the text brings into the reader’s consciousness certain concepts, certain sensuous experiences, certain images of things, people, and actions. In the past, this held true with traditional printed text. It is vital that educators lead students to achieve the same results with all forms of new literacies. One such way educators (and other adults) can begin to close the gap between reading and computer use is by forming online book clubs. Many public libraries offer summer online book clubs to encourage pleasure reading and also provide online forums for kids to discuss the books and socialize (“new” literacies practices) (Scharber, 2009). This type of book club can easily be adapted for use in any classroom. One such adaptable resource is www.moodle.org. This website is free, secure and offers many ways to engage the club members (daily greetings, surveys, discussions/topics, hyperlinks, chatrooms, etc.). In addition, as this is an established and secure site, teachers can set up their own book clubs quickly and easily. This site also incorporates components such as grades and quizzes for use in a school setting. Other advantages include readers joining in at their convenience, readers in any local can join in – distance is no obstacle (allowing students to gain insight from other cultures), different forms of media can be brought into the club, and most importantly, this interaction would foster critical thinking by having the club members support their comments and ideas. These Internet-based clubs capitalize on kids’ interest in new literacy practices while complementing, and hopefully encouraging, traditional reading practices (Scharber, 2009). To take these book clubs one-step further, educators may choose to use e-books rather than traditional printed books. E-books are available in forms ranging from toy-inspired books, CD-ROM, storybooks, online texts, and downloadable books and documents (Larson, 2009). In addition, E-books can be viewed on a number of devices (laptops, desktops, hand held devices). As technology Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 17 progresses, e-books continue to expand the reading experience by adding multi-modal features. These include such things as video, audio, hyperlinks and other interactive tools. Such tools invite readers to physically interact with the text through inserting, deleting, or replacing text; marking passages by highlighting, underlining, or crossing out words; adding comments by inserting notes, attaching files, or recording audio comments; and manipulating the page format, text size, and screen layout (Larson, 2009). Features such as these allow the readers to interact with the text and make notes for future discussion as well as engage with the text on a more personal and cognitive level. Rosenblatt’s (1938/1995) transactional theory of reader response explains that each reader breathes life into the text through personal meaning making and individual experiences. E-books clearly offer new opportunities and extended possibilities for personal interpretations of and engagement with texts (Hancock, 2008). WebQuests are yet another way to engage students in online (reading) activities. WebQuests have an immediate connection to the constructivist English classroom in that they are inquiry-oriented and centered on a doable, differentiated, engaging task. The innovative twist, outside of its structure, is that the activity, its resources, and possibly even its product are all found online (Kajder, 2003). A complete WebQuest consists of an introduction, a task, a process for completing the task, online resources (preselected by the teacher), and an evaluation (Kajder, 2003). WebQuests are flexible and popular enough that a teacher can use ones already created, adapt one to meet his or her requirements, or create one that allows the integration of specific standards and/or expectations/goals. This flexibility also enables the teacher to cater to particular student needs and push them to strive beyond where they were before and a bit outside their comfort zone. Technology implementation often stimulates teachers to present more complex tasks and material. Technology appears to stretch teachers’ expectations concerning what their students might be able to accomplish. The functionality of the technology Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 18 suggests complex tasks, and teachers see these tasks as feasible given technological supports (Means & Olson, 1994). Assessment A current obstacle to integrating new literacies is the lack of curriculum-based standards for these literacies – too much is centered around traditional printed text. Even if the school is agreeable to pedagogical reform that allows critical multimedia literacy to be incorporated into classroom practices, there is constant juggling of two systems – new pedagogical approaches but the same modes of assessment. Although it has been argued that to secure social futures in an increasingly globalized world, new literacies should be developed in the learners, this may not be effectively practiced in classrooms when the alignment between curriculum and assessment remains weak (Tan & Guo, 2010). As an example, students working on a podcast could only be assessed based on the written (preliminary) component, as the digital component is not covered under most state’s curriculum standards and/or prescribed learning outcomes. There is broad recognition that to change our expectations about what students should know and be able to do will involve also changing both the standards by which student achievements are judged and the methods by which students’ accomplishments are assessed (Sheingold & Frederiksen, 1994). When asked how technology is affecting students, teachers mention positive changes in such student abilities as sophisticated problem solving, writing, collaborative learning, global awareness, independence and efficacy, and engagement and motivation, as well as in students’ specific technology skills (Baker, Herman, & Gearhart, 1989). Current standardized tests do not assess these types of skills (problem solving, complex thinking, etc.) and thusly need to be either restructured or done away with completely. One such example illustrating this problem is student writing. During standardized testing, students are required to complete an essay in one sitting – very little room is given for revising or reviewing. Standardized testing does not allow for the word processing skills the students have learned Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 19 to be assessed by – word processing encourages a more in depth writing process (critical thinking) and allows students to revise their work. Technology is predominantly used in formative (as opposed to summative) assessment and provides an excellent way to aid student learning, giving key feedback when it is needed. A technological solution to assessment has many advantages over its paper counterpart: - it allows more than one attempt - it can supply hints or a ‘cheat’ key - it can give immediate feedback - it can guide students’ reading as a result of the test - you can feed in distracters to students as they progress In addition, technology can be used in assessment in a variety of ways: - to collate, disseminate and analyse course and assessment data - as a tool of assessment - to assess learning (Maier, Barnett, Warren, & Brunner, 1998) The current trend of assessing based on performance (as opposed to recalling facts) is a large step in the right direction. Many school systems now require students to keep, build on, and turn in, portfolios of work done over an extended period of time (in some cases, several years). Technology allows these portfolios to be stored electronically, eliminating the need for cumbersome paper based materials that constantly need to be transported. In addition, having electronic versions of student work allows reviewing of performances giving educators ample opportunity to evaluate the work without having to rely solely on memory. More room for group discussion is also made possible given this technology. These portfolios provide useful evidence of the student’s growth and development, as well as of the final levels of performance attained. In assessment programs that rely on portfolios, students are often encouraged to consider what should go into their portfolios, why they have made their particular choices, and how their work has evolved over the period their portfolios cover (Sheingold & Frederiksen, 1994). When students are active participants in their own performance assessment, they Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 20 are more likely to think critically about what work is included and why (keeping in mind strengths and weaknesses of their work – and ways to improve). Through modeling and close monitoring of student thinking, teachers need to ensure that students have strategies for assembling knowledge and understanding content (Kajder, 2003). Exercises such as KWL charts and other graphic organizers can be used to assess student’s knowledge and understanding in regards to hypertext (and other forms of new literacies). As in traditional text, discussion following the reading of online/hypertext is a valuable tool in assessing what students take away from what they read in addition to gaining an understanding as to the path they chose and why (hypertext). Implications and Conclusion Technological changes and advancements in today’s society dictate that changes need to take place in the classroom as well. In regards to the Language Arts, educators need to place more importance on new/digital literacies (as well as the importance of critically thinking about these literacies) and their implications both in and out of the school environment. Traditionally, an English class has relied heavily on print based media. While this form of literature is still very important and should not be disregarded, it should no longer be the main emphasis. Bringing about these changes also requires that teachers have a strong knowledge base in regards to these new literacies and best methods needed to engage all students regardless of cultural background or skill/achievement level – teaching strategies need to be in place for ELL’s, struggling students, high achievers, and students from all ethnic and economic backgrounds (a teacher can only teach what he or she knows well – this holds true with critical thinking and new literacies just as it does with math and science). The teacher also needs to believe that these new literacies are important and that there is a need for them to be an integral part of the modern classroom – if he or she places Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 21 little or no value on new literacies, they won’t be successfully taught and the students will not see learning about them as relevant/important in relation to their lives. In many cases, teachers need strong support and training in order to successfully incorporate new literacies into their curriculum (he or she may not be aware of these technologies or specific aspects of the technologies) – some of this support may very well come from the students themselves. If teachers are not comfortable with new literacies, they will need to step out of the confines they are used to in order to use these literacies in ways that make connections to the lives of their students. The teachers must additionally have a strong understanding of popular culture (what the students are interested in) and ways to use pop culture and technology to engage the students. Creating a more interactive, collaborative based learning environment will aid in allowing students to work with their peers as well as with the teacher. This type of atmosphere encourages students to immerse themselves deeper in their work, making it more personal (bringing in connections to their lives outside of school) as well as work and communicate with other students (the importance of teamwork and peer input). When the students work together collaboratively, they place themselves in the role of a teacher, enabling them to take more ownership of their learning. As the role of the student changes, so must the role of the teacher. It is no longer viable for a teacher to solely impart knowledge – he or she should now take the part of facilitator, allowing for a more student-centered classroom. As the teacher becomes more of a facilitator, he or she will have the advantage of learning from the students – aspects of their backgrounds, their learning styles, and their interests (all of which should be incorporated into the subject matter and projects covered in class). More emphasis needs to be placed on the students, their experiences, and their backgrounds. When the students see that the teacher values their knowledge and input, the students are much more likely to be enthused and engaged. Without the interaction between peers and teachers, students have the tendency to become disengaged. Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 22 As technology is an ever-changing environment, teachers and classrooms today and in the future (including my own) must be malleable. It is vital that educators impart skills relevant to the current forms of technology, digital literacies, as well as the critical thinking skills necessary to successfully use and these forms of media. In conjunction, professional development needs to become much more of an ongoing reality in order to make sure teachers have the necessary skills to not only use these new technologies, but methods to teach and use them in ways that engage the students (incorporating aspects of student’s lives, interests and experiences). In direct correlation, standards and assessment must reflect these new technologies and ways of thinking – currently, they are no longer given modern times. “We need to advocate for better standards, demand better reading assessments, support greater professional development and instruction, encourage school leadership, and build bridges with reading communities and online literacy” (Leu, 2010). 23 Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies Appendix A Criteria Scoring Rubric for Evaluating Reliability and Credibility of Web Pages No Some Rich and Relevant Information Information Information 1. Determine the author’s expertise on the topic 2. Learn more about the site where the page appears. 3. Check out the links from the author’s page to other pages. 4. Find out which Web pages have links pointing to the author’s page or to the sponsoring organization’s site. 5. Look for “pages on the Web” rather than Web pages about the author or organization. 6. Determine how recently the pge was published or updated. 7. Assess the accuracy of the information in the document. 8. Look for bias in the presentation of the Web page. 9. Assess the evidence presented to support opinions or conclusions expressed in the document. 10. Check to make sure that the information included is complete and, if applicable, cited from a current source. 11. Check whether design of the site promotes the information and reflects balanced “splash”. Information includes the author’s occupation, experience, and educational background. This is found within the site, not just on the target page. Information includes who supports the Web site (an individual’s page, an educational site, a commercial site, and organization) and contact information. The facts/pictures/videos can be substantiated at other sites. Links add to both credibility and resources available. External links are to helpful sites. Information from sites that link to the author’s page is legitimate and provides documentation for the author’s page. Information is triangulated-availabl from more than one source, preferably threefrom traditional sources such as newspapers, magazines, or library resources on the Web. Information is included about the date of publication. That date is timely, especially in relation to the content. Information is included about the accuracy of the content and its presentation (grammar, spelling, punctuation, layout). Information includes an examination of the language within the document (extreme, appeal, limited perspective). Information includes evidence to support opinions and conclusions expressed in the document (data-driven, references provided, author contact information). Information is not “under construction.” Copyrighted material is cited and an effort to maintain its timeliness is clearly reflected. Multimedia, if included, assist in conveying information AND are appropriate. Site follows the 80/20 formula Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 24 (Kajder, 2003) References Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. L., (1989), The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: 1988 UCLA evaluation study (Report to Apple Computer), Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation. Barron, L., & Goldman, E., (1994), Integrating Technology with Teacher Preparation, In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and Education Reform (pp. 81-110), San Francisco, CA., Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bean, T.W., & Moni, K. (2003), Developing students’ critical literacy: Exploring identity construction in young adult fiction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(8), 638-648. Beetham, H., & Oliver, M. (2010), The Changing Practices of Knowledge and Learning, in R. Sharpe, H. H. Beetham & S. De Freitas’ (Ed.), Rethinking Learning For A Digital Age (pp. 155-169), New York, NY., Routledge. Berners-Lee, T., (1997), Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web. New York, HarperCollins. Black, R., English-Language Learners, Fan Communities, and 21st-Century Skills, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(8), 688-697. Bureau of Labor Stastics, (2007), American time use survey, United States Department of Labor, Retrieved July 12th, 2011 from www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf. Burke, J. (1998), The English Teacher’s Companion. Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann. Cliff, D., O’Malley, C., & Taylor, J., (2009), Future issues in socio-technical change for UK education, paper prepared for the Beyond Current Horizons Project, Bristol: DCSF/Futurelab Cuban, L., (2001), Oversold and Underused” Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Dalton, B., Proctor, C., (2008), The Changing Landscape of Text and Comprehension in the Age of New Literacies. Handbook of Research on New Literacies, 297-324. David, J., (1994), Realizing the Promise of Technology: A policy Perspective, In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and Education Reform (pp. 169-189), San Francisco, CA., Jossey-Bass Publishers. Fishman, B. J., & Duffy, T.M., (1992), Strategic teaching frameworks: Hypermedia for strategic classroom change, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Friere, P., & Macedo, D. (1987), Literacy: Reading the word and the world, South Hadley, MA, Bergin & Garvey. Hancock, M.R., (2008), The status of reader response research” Sustaining the reader’s voice in challenging times. In S. Lehr (Ed.), Shattering the looking glass” Challenge, risk, and controversy in children’s literature (pp. 97-116). Norwood, MA, Christopher-Gordon. Hartman, D., Morsink, P. & Zheng, J., (2010), From Print to Pixels: The Evolution of Cognitive Conceptions of Reading Comprehension, in E. Baker’s (Ed.), The New Literacies: Multiple Perspectives on Research and Practice, (pp. 131-164), New York, Guilford Press. Hobbs, R. (2006). Multiple visions of multimedia literacy: Emerging areas of synthesis. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Keiffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 15–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jensen, L.A., (2003), Coing of age in a multicultural world: Globalization and adolescent cultural identity formation. Appllied Developmental Science, 7(3), 189-196. Kajder, S., (2003), The Tech-Savvy English Classroom, U.S., Stenhouse Kress, G., (2003), Literacy in the new media age, London, Routeledge Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 25 Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K–12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75, 285–328. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995), But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M., (2002) Literacies, Texts and Difference in the Electronic Age. In Lankshear, C. (Ed.), Changing Literacies (pp. 133 – 163). Bristol, PA, Open University Press. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M., (2007), Sampling “the new” in new literacies, In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (EDS.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1-24), New York, Peter Lang. Larson, L., Digital Literacies, e-Reading and e-Responding: New Tools for the Next Generation of Readers, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 53(3), 255-258. Lenhart, A., and Simon, M., (2001), The Internet and Education: Finding of the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC, Pew Intenet and American Life Project. Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J.K., & Cammack, D.W., (2004), Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 15701613), Newark, DE., International Reading Association. Leu, D., (2010), SLJ Leadership Summit 2010: Donald Leu on Embracing New Literacies, retrieved from http://www.schoolibraryjournal.com/slj/home/887418312/slj_leadership_sumit_2010_donald. html.csp Livingstone, S., (2002), Young People and New Media, London, Sage Publications. Maier, P., Barnett, L., Warren, A., & Brunner, D. (1998), Using Technology in Teaching & Learning, London, Kogan Page Limited. McKenzie, J., (2000), Presentation at Maryland Technology Showcase, December 10. Means, B., & Olson, K., (1994), Tomorrow’s Schools: Technology and Reform in Partnership, In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and Education Reform (pp. 191-222), San Francisco, CA., Jossey-Bass Publishers. Means, B., & Olson, K., (1997), Technology and Education Reform, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Education. Murray, J. (2001), Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA., MIT Press. National Assessment of Educational Progress, (2005), The nation’s report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). Washington, DC, National Center for Educational Statistics. National Endowment for the Arts, (2004), Reading at Risk: survey of literary reading in America (Research Division Report #46), Washington, DC, Office of Research and Analysis. National Endowment for the Arts, (2007), To read or not to read: A question of national consequence (Research report #47), Washington, DC, Office of Research and Analysis. Neufeld,P., & Toohey, K. (2008), Narratives, podcasts and the literacy development of grade 5 English language learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL. New London Group (1996), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures, Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 69-92. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, (2003), 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Retrieved from web.archive.org/web/20070205041546/www,ncrel.org/engauge/skills/agelit.htm. Papert, S. (1993), The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York, Basic Books. Postman, N., (1993), Technopoly: The surrender of Culture to Technology. New York, Vintage Books. Rosenblatt, L., (1996), Literature as Exploration. Chicago, Modern Language Association of America. Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 26 Rowsell, J., Burke, A., Reading by Design: Two Case Studies of Digital Reading Practices., Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(2), 106-118. Scharber, C., Online Book Clubs: Digital Literacies: Bridges Between Old and New Literacies Practices, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 52(5), 433-437 Sharpe, R., & Beetham, H., (2010), Understanding Students’ Uses of Technology for Learning, in R. Sharpe, H. H. Beetham & S. De Freitas’ (Ed.), Rethinking Learning For A Digital Age (pp. 85-99), New York, NY., Routledge. Sheingold, K., (1991), Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy, Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 17-27. Sheingold, K. & Frederiksen, J., (1994), Using Technology to Support Innovative Assessment, In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and Education Reform (pp. 111-132), San Francisco, CA., Jossey-Bass Publishers. Siemens, G., (2005), Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age, elearning article, 2004, updated 2005, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Smetana, L., Odelson, D., Burns, H., Grisham, D., Using Graphic Novels in the High School Classroom: Engaging Deaf Students With a New Genre, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(3), 228-240. Smythe, S., & Neufeld, P., (2010), “Podcast Time”: Negotiating Digital Literacies and Communities of Learning in a Middle Years ELL Classroom, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(6), 488-496. Tan, L., & Guo, L., From Print to Critical Multimedia Literacy: One Teacher’s Foray Into New Literacies Practices, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(4), 315-324. Tierney, R. (2006), Global/cultural teachers creating possibilities: Reading worlds, reading selves, and learning to teach, Pedagogies, 1(1), 77-86. 21st Century Workforce Commission, (2000), A nation of opportunity: Building America’s 21st century workforce, retrieved from digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003& context=key_workplace. Walker, S., Jameson, J., & Ryan, M., Skills and Strategies for E-learning in a Participatory Culture, in R. Sharpe, H. H. Beetham & S. De Freitas’ (Ed.), Rethinking Learning For A Digital Age (pp. 212224), New York, NY., Routledge. Wilhelm, J. (2000), Literacy by Design: Why Is All This Technology So Important?” (Kajder, 2003), Voices From the Middle 7 (3): 4-14 Williams, P. & Rowlands, I. (2007), Information behavior of the research of the future; work package ii: the literature on young people and their information behaviour, London: CIBER UCL. Retrieved from www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/ciber/downloads/GC%20Work%Package%2011.pdf. Wiszniewski, D., & Coyne, R. (2002), Mask and identity” The hermeneutics of self-construction in the information age, in K.A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities” Learning and change in cyberspace, (pp. 191-214), New York Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, S. (2007), The (mis)education of Generation M, Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 6981 www.netnet.org/students/student%20glossary.htm academic.wsc.edu/edc/ncate/ncate_institutional_report/definitions/ http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutct/define_critical_thinking.cfm http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/ourConceptCT.cfm http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast Critical Thinking in Response to Digital Literacies 27