Research Article

Reading, Writing and Reading Comprehension: Coexistence between Printed and Digital Media

Genny Alejandra Cataño Lopera
University of Antioquia, Colombia
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.2.597

Read Counter
1086

Downloads
786

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2023-02-13
Published 2023-03-20

Read counter = 1086 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

Culture is an extremely complex phenomenon that is linked not only to the communicative function but also to social practices. Reading and writing are constructs that have accompanied human beings since the appearance of the codex (ancient handwritten books), through the printing press. Nowadays, digital media, and even printed media, have great relevance, especially if we talk about informative vehicles possessors and transmitters of knowledge, which have an audience with significant reading and writing habits. The call is then to learn to make a joint and avant-garde use of print and digital media to strengthen the development of reading, writing, and reading comprehension from the school environment.

Keywords: digital text literacy printed text reading reading comprehension student writing

References

  1. Bangert-Drowns, R.L. et. al. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: Ameta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1),29–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029.
     Google Scholar
  2. Berman, I. (2009). Supporting adolescent literacy achievement [Issue brief]. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from https://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/ NGA/files/pdf/0902ADOLESCENTLITERACY.PDF.
     Google Scholar
  3. Carr, N. (2011). What is the internet doing to our minds? Superficial. Editorial Taurus, Bogotá-Colombia. p. 341.
     Google Scholar
  4. Casati, R. (2015). In praise of paper: against digital colonialism. Editorial Ariel, Barcelona-Spain. p. 224.
     Google Scholar
  5. Cassany, D. (2004). Exploring current needs for understanding. Approaches to critical comprehension. Journal: Lectura y Vida. XXV (2), 6–23.
     Google Scholar
  6. Cassany, D. (1997). Describing writing. How to learn to write. Barcelona: Paidós.
     Google Scholar
  7. Cassany, D. et. al. (1994) [reprinted 2008]. Teaching language. The four skills: Reading comprehension. Barcelona: Graó, § 6.4. Reading comprehension. Pp. 193–207.
     Google Scholar
  8. Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4) 352–392. doi: 10.1177/1086296X11421979. doi: 10.1177/1086296X11421979.
     Google Scholar
  9. Cordón, J.A. and Jarvio, A.O. (2015). Is reading and writing being transformed in the digital age? Interamerican Journal of Library Science, 38(2), 137–145. doi: 10.17533/udea.rib.v38n2a05.
     Google Scholar
  10. Di Stefano, M. and Pereira, C. (1997). Social representations in the reading process. Signo y Seña - Revista del Instituto de Lingüística, nº 8. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
     Google Scholar
  11. Duke, N.K. et. al. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In: S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51-93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
     Google Scholar
  12. Eco, U. (1981). The model reader. In: Lector in fábula, pp.73-95. Spain: Ediciones Lumen.
     Google Scholar
  13. Espinoza, N. and Morales, O. (2002). Electronic text: The disappearance of print or the emergence of a new source of reading? In: Lectura y Vida, 23 (4).
     Google Scholar
  14. Espinoza, N. and Morales, O. (2000). The development of reading and writing in the university: an experience of teacher integration. In: FOULA, 1 (1), 74–81.
     Google Scholar
  15. Ferreiro, E. (2011). Digital literacy: What are we talking about? Educação e Pesquisa, 37(2), 423–438. doi: 10.1590/S1517-97022011000200014.
     Google Scholar
  16. Ferreiro, E. (2001). Past and present tense of the verbs read and write. FCE: Mexico.
     Google Scholar
  17. Flores-Carrasco, P.G. et. al. (2017). Comprehension of texts in digital and printed support and self-regulation of learning in university groups of education students. In: Revista Electrónica Educare, vol. 21, núm. National University. CIDE. DOI: 10.15359/ree.21-1.7.
     Google Scholar
  18. García, M. (2012). Academic self-regulation as an explanatory variable of university learning processes. Journal of Curriculum and Teacher Education, 16(1), 203–221. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~recfpro/rev161ART12.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  19. Godard, L. (2002). Literacy and informatics with seven-year-old students; realization of a classroom project. Memorias del VII congreso latinoamericano para el desarrollo de la Lectura y la Escritura. Puebla: Secretaría de Educación Pública.
     Google Scholar
  20. Goodman, K. (1980a). Behind the eyes: What happens in reading. In: H. Singer, and R. B. Ruddel (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp.470-495). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. (Reprinted from K. Goodman, and O. Niles (Eds.) (1970). Reading process and program).
     Google Scholar
  21. Goodman, K. (1980b). Reading a psycholinguistic guessing game. In: H. Singer & R. B. Ruddel (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp.497–508). Newark, De: International Reading Association (reprinted from the Journal of the Reading Specialist, May 1967).
     Google Scholar
  22. Graham, S. et. al. (2017). Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta-Analysis. In: Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3). 279–304. doi:10.1002/rrq.194. International Literacy Association.
     Google Scholar
  23. Graham, S. & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
     Google Scholar
  24. Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In: P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     Google Scholar
  25. Henao, O. and Ramírez, D. (2006). Information and communication technologies in reading and writing. Taken from: Propuesta didáctica para el área de lecto-escritura con un enfoque socioconstructivista y apoyada en tecnologías de información y comunicación. Didactics and New Technologies Group. University of Antioquia.
     Google Scholar
  26. Henao, O. et. al. (2006). Written production mediated by computer tools. Textual quality, learning level and motivation. Lectura y Vida (Latin American Journal of Reading), 27 (2), 6–13.
     Google Scholar
  27. Kilian, K. (2001). Writing for the web. Spain: Ediciones Deusto, S. A. First edition. (Original work. Writing for the Web published in 1998).
     Google Scholar
  28. Lemke, J. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In: Reinking, D. Shanahan, T. (1988). The reading-writing relationship: Seven instructional principles. The Reading Teacher, 41(7), 636–647.
     Google Scholar
  29. Mangen, A. et. al. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.
     Google Scholar
  30. Morales, O. and Espinoza, N. (2003). Reading and writing: coexistence between print and electronic. Educere, 7(22), 213–222. Universidad de los Andes, Mérida – Venezuela.
     Google Scholar
  31. Morales, O. y Espinoza, N. (2002). The development of writing in university students. Paper presented at VII Congreso Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo de la Lectura y la Escritura. Puebla: Secretaría de Educación Pública.
     Google Scholar
  32. Murray, D. (1980). How writing finds its own meaning. In: T. Donovan, and B. McClelland (Eds.), Teaching composition: Theory into practice. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
     Google Scholar
  33. Núñez, J.C. et. al. (2006). Self-regulated learning as a means and goal of education. Papeles del Psicólogo, 27(3), 139–146. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/778/77827303.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  34. Papert, S. (1981). Challenging the mind: Computers and education. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones Galápago. 255 p.
     Google Scholar
  35. Parodi, G. (1998). Strategic ability and the comprehension of written texts. In: M. Peronard, L.A. Gómez, G. Parodi and P. Núñez (Eds.), Comprensión de textos escritos: From theory to the classroom; pp. 175–189. Chile: Andrés Bello.
     Google Scholar
  36. Pérez, P. (2012). Reading on screen. Revista Aula Infantil, 67, 22–23.
     Google Scholar
  37. Peronard, M. (2007). Reading on paper and computer screen. Signos Journal, 40(63), 179–195. doi: 10.4067/S0718-09342007000100009.
     Google Scholar
  38. Peronard, M. (1997). Comprehension of written texts as a strategic process. In: M. Peronard, L.A. Gómez, G. Parodi and P. Núñez (Eds.), Comprensión de textos escritos: From theory to the classroom (pp. 163–173). Santiago: Andrés Bello.
     Google Scholar
  39. Rosenblatt, L. (1985). Writing and reading: the transactional theory. Technical Report No. 416. New York: New York University.
     Google Scholar
  40. Rowsell, J. and Walsh, M. (2015). Rethinking literacy for new times: multimodality, multiliteracies, and new literacies. Enunciation, 20(1), 141–150.
     Google Scholar
  41. Shanahan, T. (2016). Relationships between reading and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 194–207). New York, NY: Guilford.
     Google Scholar
  42. Shanahan, T. (1988). The reading-writing relationship: Seven instructional principles. The Reading Teacher, 41(7), 636–647.
     Google Scholar
  43. Smith, F. (1997). Between hope and havoc. Postmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     Google Scholar
  44. Smith, F. (1981a). Writing and the writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
     Google Scholar
  45. Smith, F. (1981b). Myths of writing. In: Language Arts, 58(7), 792–798.
     Google Scholar
  46. Solano, P. et. al. (2004). Self-regulation of learning from texts. Galician-Portuguese Journal of Psicoloxia e Educación, 11(9), 111–128.Retrieved From http://webdocente.altascapacidades.es/Aprendizaje%20Autorregulado/RGP_11-8.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  47. Teberosky, A. and Tolchinsky, L. (1995). Beyond literacy. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Santillana, Aula XXI.
     Google Scholar
  48. Tierney, R.J. & Pearson, P.D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts, 60(5), 568–580.
     Google Scholar
  49. Vaca, J. and Hernández, D. (2006). Paper texts vs. electronic texts: new readings? In: Perfiles Educativos; XXVIII (113), 106–128.
     Google Scholar