Out-of-School Reading and Literature Discussion: An Exploration of Adolescents’ Participation in Digital Book Clubs

Jamie Colwell, Lindsay Woodward, Amy Hutchison

Abstract


This research used an inductive qualitative method to examine how adolescents participate in online literature discussion, with limited guidance from adults, through a summer reading program. Using a New Literacy framework, the authors considered that literacy is social and collaborative and that adolescents often engage in such literacy practices on the Internet outside of school. This study considered these literacy practices to examine an eight-week voluntary online summer reading program at a public library and how such a program might inform such activities in school settings to promote more authentic opportunities for literacy engagement. In this program, twelve adolescents (ages 13-17) read print-based young adult novels and responded to their reading in threaded discussion boards, called book clubs, in a closed, online social network.  Results indicated two overlapping themes related to students’ formality in writing to promote shared learning and personalizing digital discussions to make connections. Researchers found adolescents spontaneously adopted online discussion techniques that hybridized formal discussion practices with more personal practices to encourage emotive transaction with text. These results raised implications for integrating such activities in classroom settings to support all learners and to promote academic literacies.

 


Keywords


online discussion, literature discussion, adolescents, summer reading

Full Text:

PDF

References


Authors. (2010).

Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (Eds.). (2013). Summer reading: Closing the rich/poor reading achievement gap. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Almasi, J. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 314-351.

Alvermann, D. E., Marshall, J. D., McLean, C. A., Huddleston, A. P., Joaquin, J., & Bishop, J. (2012). Adolescents' web-based literacies, identity construction, and skill development. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(3), 179-195. DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2010.523135

Alvermann, D.E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom practice and research?. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8-19.

*Bauer, J. (2013). Almost home. New York: Viking.

*Baltazar, A. (2009). Tiny titans: Welcome to the treehouse. New York: DC Comics.

Black, R.W. (2009). Online fan fiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 397-425.

Buck, A. (2012). Examining digital literacy practices on social network sites. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(1), 9-38.

*Carter, A. (2007). I’d tell you I love you, but then I’d have to kill you. New York: Hyperion.

*Cashore, K. (2009). Graceling. Orlando, FL: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

*Cass, K. (2013). The selection. New York: HarperCollins.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Curwood, J.S. (2013). The Hunger Games: Literature, literacy, and online affinity spaces. Language Arts, 90(6), 417-427.

Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. 2nd ed. York, ME: Stenhouse.

*Dashner, J. (2010). The maze runner. New York: Delacourt Press.

Day, D., & Kroon, S. (2010). “Online literature circles rock!”: Organizing online literature circles in a middle school classroom. Middle School Journal, 42(2), 18-28.

English, C. (2007). Finding a voice in a threaded discussion group: Talking about literature online. English Journal, 97(1), 56-61.

*Forester, V. (2010). The girl who could fly. New York: Square Fish.

Gallo, D. (2001). How classics create an aliterate society. The English Journal, 90(3), 33-39.

Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave.

Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 5-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5

Gee, J., & Hayes, E. (2013). Nurturing affinity spaces and game- based learning. In J. Gee, Good video games + good learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 103–124). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Grisham, D.L., & Wolsey, T.D. (2006). Recentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(8), 648-660.

*Hahn, M.D. (2008). Wait till Helen comes. New York: Clarion Books.

Ivey, G., & Johnston, P.H. (2013). Engagement with young adult literature: Outcomes and processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 255-275.

*Kibushi, K. (2008). Amulet. New York: Scholastic, Inc.

Larson, L. C. (2009). Reader response meets new literacies: Empowering readers in online learning communities. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 638-648. doi:10.1598/RT.62.8.2

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007). A new literacies sampler. New York: Peter Lang.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Leander, K., & Frank, A. (2006). The aesthetic production and distribution of image/subjects among online youth. E-learning, 3(2), 185-206.

Leu, D.L., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, LA. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 6th ed. (pp. 1150-1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Maloch. B. (2004). One teacher’s journey: Transitioning into literature discussion groups. Language Arts, 81, 312-322.

*Mass, W. (2012). Twice upon a time: Rapunzel. New York: Scholastic, Inc.

Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 28(4), 285-294.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers.

Moje, E.B. (2009). A call for new research on new and multi-literacies. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 348-362.

*Moore, K., Reed, T., & Reed, L. (2013). Amber house. New York: Scholastic.

Nasir, N. S., & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning settings afford identities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41–61. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01027.x

National Governors Association (2010). Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical subjects. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ELA-literacy/

*Ness, P. & Kay, J. (2013). A monster calls. Somerville, MA: Candlewick Press.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

*Oliver, L. (2012). Delirium. New York: HarperCollins.

Öztok, M. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn (2016) 11: 157. doi:10.1007/s11412-016

-7

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pitcher, S.M., Albright, L.K., DeLaney, C.J., Walker, N.T., Seunarinesingh, K.,

Mogge, S.,…Dunston, P.J. (2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(5), 378-396.

*Poblocki, D. (2012). The ghost of Graylock. New York: Scholastic.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: Modern Language Association.

*Rush, J. (2013). Altered. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Scharber, C. (2009). Online book clubs: Bridges between old and new literacies practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 433-437.

*Schreiber, J. (2011). Au revoir, crazy European chick. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

*Selznick, B. (2011). Wonderstruck. New York: Scholastic.

Serafini, F. (2004). Lessons in comprehension. Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.

Short, K., Kaufman, G., Kaser, S., Kahn, L.H., & Crawford, K.M. (1999). “Teacher-watching”: Examining talk in literature circles. Language Arts, 76(5), 377-385.

*Spiegelman, A. (2006). Maus. New York: Pantheon Books.

Stewart, M.A. (2014). Social networking, workplace, and entertainment literacies: The out-of-school literate lives of newcomer Latina/o adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 365-369.

Thomas, D.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237-246.

Turner, K.H., Abrams, S.S., Katic, E., & Donavan, M.J. (2014). Demystifying digital: The what and why or the language teens use in digital writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 157-193.

West, K.C. (2008). Weblogs and literary response: Socially situated identities and hybrid social languages in English class blogs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(7), 588-598.

Wolsey, T.D., & Grisham, D.L. (2007). Adolescents and the new literacies: Writing engagement. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 29-38.

*Young, M. (2012). Dust lands: Blood red road. New York: Margaret K. McElderry Books.

* Indicates a book club book title.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i2.1222