Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6NKOvf05582; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <v03007811b7824cedc708@[128.192.78.60]> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: David Reinking <dreinkin@coe.uga.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:1931] Re: Opening questions for David Reinking X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: O Content-Length: 11818 Lines: 217 Here are my responses and queries in relation to several comments and questions that I first received. I see some more have been posted to the list, and I'll do my best to respond to them as soon as possible. DR >"I'd like to have David discuss what he thinks about second language >learners and hypertext. Studies I have read state that even I, who speak >English as my first language, will when looking for something specific on >the web, will stop, thinking, I've found it after searching through links, >even when I have not truly found it at all. And that I will forget, half, if >not more of what I learned through the hypertextual experience. If I do that >(or let us say perhaps an excellent student, of which I am not) then what >happens to our second language learner who we put on the Internet?" Response: Second language learning is outside my area of interest and expertise, so I can't respond knowledgeably to the main thrust of this question. But, one obvious advantage of online texts in terms of second language learners is the capability of digital texts to provide readily accessible translations (and pronunciations, etc.) to readers in their first language. Many non-English sites, especially those providing travel information, include an option for viewing the site in other languages, motivated no doubt by commercial interests. So, to the extent that having a parallel text in one's first language is helpful, it is easy to see one advantage of digital texts for second language learners, although this is not likely to happen spontaneously on the internet without financial incentives. As to the issue of finding and remembering information found in hypertextual information, I'd be interested in knowing about studies in this area. Could the writer or others cite some examples? One thing that makes monitoring the literature related to digital texts/information so difficult is that so many different disciplines are exploring various aspects of digital texts from so many different perspectives. I know of a few studies that suggest some interesting hypotheses in that regard, but there are likely to be many more of which I'm not aware. For example, some relevant work has been conducted by Rand Spiro and his colleagues (Spiro, et al., 1992) who have used Wittgenstein's metaphor of "criss-crossed landscapes" to talk about learning and recall of information in "ill-structured" domains. In their work, medical students learning to diagnose medical conditions (typically an "ill structured" domain of knowledge) were better able to apply information towards an accurate diagnosis when it was presented as a hypertext as opposed to a conventional linear text. On the other hand, their recall of factual information was poorer than those who read the conventional printed text providing the same information. Likewise, Kintch and Mannes and Kintch (1987) found essentially the same result when prior to reading, readers were presented with an outline that matched the subsequent text or they were given a scrambled version of the outline. That is, those who had to impose order on textual information, which is analogous to a hypertext, seemed to be better at applying the information, but those who were given the ordered outline were better at recalling factual details. These findings suggest that conventional printed texts and hypertexts may naturally engage readers in ways that produce different but in some instances equally valued outcomes. The mistake I think is when we are tempted to set up a horse race between the two forms suggesting that one form is inherently better than the other. On the other hand, I might add that a digital text can be presented in a way that closely parallels printed texts (i.e., purposefully negating the unique capabilities of the computer for presenting texts), so that digital texts can mimic printed texts. But, digital texts offer an much larger set of contingencies for writing and reading so that we can think seriously about engineering the reading experience to enhance valued goals and to compensate for problematic limitations and negative consequences. > >Is there any evidence to show that digital text succeeds with struggling >adult new readers where printed text has not been successful? Response: Again, I'm sorry to say that I do not know of any empirical evidence that speaks directly to this question, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. I do not monitor closely the literature focused on adult literacy. Again, I would appreciate learning of such evidence if anyone on the list can suggest publications or other sources of information. Nonetheless, I can think of a few studies suggesting that digital texts can be presented in a way that compensates for difficulties experienced by younger readers who are struggling. An early study by L'Allier (1980), for example, used a complex algorithm to adjust textual information systematically in relation to readers' actions and responses during reading. Under that condition, high school students who were poor readers read with as much comprehension as their more normally achieving peers. I'm not sure I like the metaphor, but I think he (or others?) has used the term "prosthesis" in referring to the assistance made possible by the computer during reading. Likewise, Salomon et al. (1989) used Vygotsky's notion of "scaffolding" to design computer-assisted reading tasks that seemed to help poor readers. There are other examples such as Reitsma's (1988) use of computers to aid students in reading aloud and my own preliminary work with my colleague Mike McKenna (under review). We've provided young children reading online version of children's books with pronunciations of unfamiliar words and phonics analogies with some encouraging results. We are also interested in seeing how far above their reading level they will choose to read with this type of assistance. Now that I think about it, I do remember some very dated (in terms of the technologies employed) by George McConkie at the University of Illinois who found that the reading ability of marginally literate readers in a prison population improved more when reading high interest materials with on-line assistance (pronunciations of unfamiliar words, I believe) than did other prisoners receiving more conventional reading instruction (see McConkie & Zola, 1987). I think the bottom line is that it's hard for me to imagine that digital texts wouldn't play some significant role in adult reading instruction given the diverse range of assistance and reading contingencies they make available. > >Are adult beginning readers and language learners as engaged by and skilled >with multimedia texts as children are? Again, I don't know of any empirical evidence that addresses this issues specifically, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some. Can someone cite some research here? Or, are there anecdotal experiences that might be relevant? I have argued that digital (multimedia in particular) texts are inherently more engaging than printed texts in general because they are able to more actively engage the reader and to meet the needs of individual readers. So, theoretically, at least, I'd say yes. I've written a whole chapter trying to justify and explain that position. Because it would take some time to do justice to the argument here, I'll simply give the following citation: Reinking, D. (2001). Multimedia and engaged reading in a digital world. In L. Verhoeven & K. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 195 221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. But, I can go into more detail on the list if this is a direction others would like to go. > >Can you (David) discuss the "melding of reading and authoring" (from >Digressions 2) that you suggest electronic text introduces to the act of >reading? First, let me make clear that this idea did not originate with, but it is one that others have made and that makes sense to me. The following are good sources for those who wish to pursue this idea further: Bolter (1991), Landow (1992), and Lanham (1993). There are a couple of dimensions of the issue that can be seen plainly in relation to reading online. First, hypertexts are the most obvious example of a reader sharing in the authorship of a text, because a reader of hypertext must choose among a variety of pathways during reading. So, the reader is at the very least co-constructing the text with the author. Another example is the clear movement toward more interactive dialogues in the creation of texts. This listserv discussion is the obvious example. Authoring "teams" engaged in dialogue are more the norm today than is the image of the lone author working in solitude and whose work is read and digested in solitude by individual readers. Actually, this blurring sometimes occurs in print environments, but it is not often evident by readers--the conventional scholarly journal being a good example. As a journal editor I see the extent to which a published piece has been the result of an extended interaction between "authors" (those whose name appears under the title), reviewers, and editors. In more extreme cases the reviewers and editors probably deserve to be listed as co-authors. I'm wondering what the implications of this shift might be for developing adult literacy. Any thoughts? References Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Also available as hypertext computer program.] L'Allier, J. J. (1980). An evaluation study of a computer-based lesson that adjusts reading level by monitoring on task reader characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Lanham, R. A. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mannes, S. M., & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 91-115. McConkie, G. W., & Zola, D. (1987). Two examples of computer-based research on reading: Eye movement monitoring and computer-aided reading. In D. Reinking (Ed.), Reading and computers: Issues for theory and practice (pp. 97-108). New York: Teachers College Press. Reinking, D. (2001). Multimedia and engaged reading in a digital world. In L. Verhoeven & K. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 195 221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reitsma, P. (1988). Reading practice for beginners: Effects of guided reading, reading-while listening, and independent reading with computer-based speech feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 219-235. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 620-627. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ******************************* David Reinking Professor & Department Head Editor: Journal of Literacy Research University of Georgia Department of Reading Education 309 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 706-542-4623 voice 706-542-3817 fax *******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:31:20 EST