3rd Baltic Sea – 17th Nordic Literacy Conference14−16 August 2016 − Turku/Åbo, Finland Making meaning – literacy in action Workshop Literacy in a digital age: a challenge for language teachers?

1. 3rd Baltic Sea – 17th Nordic Literacy
Conference
14−16 August 2016 − Turku/Åbo, Finland
Making meaning – literacy in action
Jeroen Clemens
Literacy in a digital age: a challenge for
language teachers?
www.jeroenclemens.nl
@jeroencl; contact@jeroenclemens.nl

2. 1. Language Teacher
2. Researcher New Literacies / Online literacy
3. Consultant/ writer/ speaker
§ Teacher trainer
§ Head Language department

3. jeroenclemens.nl
Jeroen Clemens

4. ability to understand, evaluate, use
and engage with written texts to
participate in society, to achieve
one’s goals, and to develop one’s
knowledge and potential (OECD 2013)

5. Print media
§ Lineair
§ Single text
§ Fixed structure
§ Textual
§ Static
§ One-way
§ Clear author
Online media
§ Non-lineair Hypertext
§ Connected texts
§ Multiple structures
§ Multimodal Multi Media
§ Flexible / Changing
§ Interactive
§ Not always clear author
Not only written texts

6. offline1.Traditional
print reading
2. Multi document
reading: analysis &
synthesis
3. Reading online:
search, evaluate,
synthesis &
communicate
Expand definition Literacy
Expand Pedagogy
Cho & Afflerbach, 2010

7. Digital natives are competent readers
online?

8. New & aditional skills and strategies needed
Many students are not competent: see reading list

9. jeroenclemens.nl
Digital natives
Diataal (Haquebord)
ORCA Nederlands (Clemens)
eigen onderzoek
zoeken evalueren synthese
synthese
schrijven
zoeken
schrijven
synthese
evalueren
Additional competencies
Co Ev
Se
Sy
Traditional Reading test
ORCA Dutch version Clemens

10. §Baseline study: Language Teachers Secondary
Schools (online, 309)
§ Perceptions
§ Attitudes & believes
§ Knowledge & Skills
§ Motivation & Needs

11. § 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

12. § 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%).

13. § 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% don’t collaborate with colleagues on this topic (84%).

14. § 10% think school finds online literacy important.
§ 15% positive when looking at their department (15%).
§ 18% see initiatives happening at department level
§ but it’s a tough question: a lot of teachers are neutral on this
item (school: 33%, department: 50%).

15. §71% say they need professional development
to be able to teach online literacy
§This has top priority

16. §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

17. §Relate own curriculum/ learning goals
§Connect, recognisable terminology:‘Lets work on
Critical Reading Plus’,‘expand search strategies to online texts’
§Target language teachers first & early
adopters cross curriculum
§Work in teacher development teams
§Co-create / use each others materials
regional and nationally
§Share and collaborate online

18. § Afflerbach, P., & Cho, Β.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. NewYork: 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 and
learning 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.

19. §http://jeroenclemens.nl
§contact@jeroenclemens.nl
§@jeroencl
§Download on
§ http://literacyeurope.org
§ http://www.slideshare.net/jeroencl