Standards for Digital Era

8/11/2019 Standards for Digital Era

1/16

What Four Skills

Redefining Language and LiteracyS tandards for ELT in the Digital Era

Heather Lotherington

Over the last 15 years, the rapid development of information and comm unicatiotechnologies (ICT) h s facilitated a revolution in how we use language. Online

environments have facilitated creative and variable spelling using codehybridization and stylistic use of mech nic l conventions such as punctuationand capitalization, lexical coinages, new genres and conversational shapes, newsocial networks, and digital identities. The traditional four-skills paradigm otext-based grammar study fiaming English-language teaching curricula nolonger adequately describes language and liter cies in the Information Era. Thisarticle examines changing language conventions in English used in online environments, theorizing directions for new and variable language conventionsThe article makes the case that understanding relative language standards indigital environments is essenti l for teaching and testing ppropri te and con-temporary English language and literacies.

Depu is 15 ans, l volution cclre des technologies de l information et de lcommunication (TIC), contribu une rvolution dans la faon dont nous nousservons du langage. Les environnements en ligne ont contribu au dveloppement d une orthographe crative et v ri ble c r ctrise par une hybridation dcodes et un em ploi stylistique de conventions mcaniques telles la ponctuation e

l usage des majuscules, l production de nouveaux mots, de nouveaux genres, dnouvelles formes de conversation, de nouveaux rseaux sociaux et d identitnumriques. L enseignement de l anglais reposant sur le pa radigme traditionnelbas sur quatre comptences langagires, les textes et la grammaire, ne refiteplus la langue et la littratie l re de l information. Cet article tudie lesconventions langagires anglaises en vo lution telles qu elles sont employedans des environnements en ligne, et l bore des thories sur des orientations quprendront de nouvelles conventions langagires. Cet article propose qu il esessentiel de comprendre les normes l ng gires rel tives dans les environnementnumriques pour pouvoir enseigner et valuer l anglais contemporain de faonapproprie


2/16

Introduction: English in the Information EraThe four basic language abilities are comm only regarded as speaking,listening, rea ding and v^rifing. Hov^^ever, there are times when a personis nof speakin g, listening, reading or writing but is sfill using language.(Baker, 2001, p . 6)

E-mail from my teenaged daughte r, 2001:

hey momm y,here ya go. I will think up sum smiley faces that pp l use when they rdescribing em otions in a couple o ' taps of the keyboard (when they r 2lazy describe their emotions 2 u). w / this little paragrap h i hope u like

these smileys n e ways here they r.This e mail was in response to my naive request for a sample of the cor-respondence young people seemed to be using with one another online, andincreasingly on paper. I had begun to notice smiley faces handwritten onapologies appended to late assignments handed in by my undergraduatestudents. A respected colleague, also mother of a teenager, noted that herson 's use of online shorth and seemed to be crossing over into his academicwork. My neighbor mentioned in passing that her teenagers were chatting

with friends online using seemingly bizarre names.Canadians are engaging in digital literacies on a daily basis, many of

which are seamlessly wo ven into daily practices. It is comm on for teachers towrite more on a screen using a keyboard than they do on paper with pen orpencil in their everyday literacy practices. Students are required to word-process assignments. Basic social inquiries comm only present an initial digi-tal interface: for example, withdrawing and depositing money in banks;renewing car and driving licenses in kiosks; searching for jobs; locating

library resources; and pay ing for purchases with debit or credit cards. Digitalinterfaces often also mediate how bills are paid, how correspondences arekept up , how purchases are mad e, and even how friends and lovers meet.

English language-learners of all ages need to learn to negotiate digitalinterfaces and to participate in digital communication as appropriately asthey d o in face-to-face com munication . However, the teaching of English indigital environments in ESL courses, many of which continue to rely onfour-skills curriculum models, lags behind daily communicative realities.

There are obvious reasons for pedagogical delays in revising currentcommunicative lan guage instruction to include app ropriate digital literacies,stem ming from the econom ic, political, social, and epistemological fallout of


3/16

Concurrently, there is a proliferation of academic and professional dicussion on how to incorporate digitization in second-language teachinassessment, and research in conferences on computer-assisted languag

leaming (CALL); in recent books (Chapelle, 2001, 2003; Egbert Ptrie, inpress; W arschauer, 1999; W arschauer Kem , 2000); and in joum als ot echnology and language leaming ReCA LL; Com puter Assisted LanguagLearning; Languag e Learning and Technology). H ow ev er, on balance, this l i tera-ture has approached language leaming through the lens of prescribespoken and written language norms that are taught through the agency odigital med ia, rather than examining language as it is used in digital com mnication.

The issues highligh ted in this article have been largely sidestepped in tgrowing literature on SLA in the Information Era, that is, acknowledging anddescribing the rapidly mutating language conventions and genres used digital enviro nm ents, and considering what these mean for second-languainstruction. New ways of communicating digitally invalidate the four-skilanguage analysis that has grounded historical second-language teachinpractice and require new ways of thinking about even such basics in seconlanguage teaching and leam ing as spelling, gramm ar, and punctuation.

Language Change and Digitized Com municationLanguages change over space and time. Alhough institutions for safeguaring and shap ing lang uage sta nda rds exist for some languagesfor exam plL' Acadmie franaise in France and Te Tauru Whiri i te Reo Maori (thMaori Language Com mission) in Aotearoa (New Zealand)languages hava habit of naturally orchestrating their own changes.

The Intem et has facilitated surprisingly rap id change in language use anusage conventions. Online chat shorthand has emerged from limitations

both space (small screens, particularly on pagers, mobile telephones, anOther handh eld devices) and time (participating in synchronous chat formFurthermore, because global digital communications occur in nanosecondrather than over days or weeks, new expressions spread far more quicklThey spread farther as well, given the one-to-many potential of Intemcommunications.

Digital comm unication has inspired new ways of expression at the leveof the morphe m e, word , sentence, and text. There are new and variable waof spelling, using emoticons, acronyms, abbreviations, homophones, annon-alphabetic symbols; new lexical coinages, such as Web site and e-mamany of which are not yet in computerized spell-checkers; new ways o


4/16

Knobel, 1997; Lotherington & Xu, in p ress; M erchant, 2001; Snyder, 1997,2002b).

Co rresponding to these brave new linguistic frontiers in digital environ-

ments , are new literacies.Literacy Literacies and Multiliteracies

It is no longer possible to think abou t literacy in isolation from a vastarray of social, technological and economic factors. (Kress, 2003, p . 1)

Efforts toward improved literacy continue in Canadian society. However,the term literacy covers a nebulous conceptual landscape that ranges from, atits most conservative, a notion of simply being able to decipher an alphabet,

to a far more conceptually complex ability to negotiate the encoded world,including sophisticated, interactive ICT. A further inherent duality of mean-ing is revealed in the Oxford English ictionary entry : the quality or state ofbeing literate which is further delineated as knowledge of letters, and condi-tion in respect to education , especially ability to read and w rite, effectivelylumping those who have learned an alphabet in with those who haveachieved a cultured and literary education: a huge spectrum of possibility,yet one that could still technically exclude people who read and write non-al-phabetic symbols such as Chinese Hanzi.

In public discourse, literacy is often construc ted as a synonym for goodEnglish grammar and control of mechanical conventions such as punctua-tion and pro pe r spelling, as exemplified in the new spape r headline of ananalysis of the Ontario provincial literacy test: W ho you callin' literate?(2003). This effectively conflates literacy w ith proficiency in written English,granting preferred language conventions and standards to written genresand disregarding the prior and parallel literacies of non-English-speakers.

Explored as situated social practice in sociolinguistic and anthropologicalinquiries (Barton, 1994; Heath , 1983; Street, 1984,1995; Gee, 1996), literacy isbetter described in terms of literacies. Studies of new literacies have emergedin response to the complex demands of contemporary global, digitizedsociety. This increasingly com plex literate world w as conceptualized as mul-tiliteracies by the New London G roup (1996): literacies that include the diver-sity of cultures and languages that our multicultural societies offer and thatengage m ultiple channels of comm unication (Cope Kalantzis, 2000).

Literacy continues to evolve with rapid ly developing digital technologies

that shape how we communicate with each other. Over the past quartercentury, we have shifted many of our literacy activities from the real worldd t th i t l ld d O i


5/16

domains where users co-construct complex textual worlds (Johnson-Eilo1997).

Co ntem porary literacies interpret the world using cu rrent textual proc

ses and produc ts (Warschauer, 1999). Texts are changing radically as teproduction moves from Industrial Era to Infonnation Era norms. Teditorial hierarchy established in book publication as quality control asurance has been destabilized by the Web's disintermediating potentiwhich effectively shrinks the degree of intellectual mediation in text publition by facilitating self-publishing. The basic element of text productionGutenberg-era publishingmoveable typehas also been transformed: tfunctional grammars of information architectures that conceptualize aencode m eaning in new w ays can render piece of information into differenformats using dynam ic shapes and sou nds (Cope & Kalantzis, 2003). Texneed to be cognitively, socially, and physically processed accordingly. Theare indeed new literacies.

Co ntem porary literacy is more accomm odatingly viewed as a processifacility for expressing and archiving communication not limited to phabetic scripts, particular languages, prestige norms, or paper-based thographic conventions; nor in this era of multimodal textualities can it restricted to particu lar langu age skills. Literacy acquisition is socializati

into and automatization of continually evolving processing facility needefor navigating contem porary society.

Traditional notions of literacy are being held in place by gatekeepinorganizations such as the Education Quality and Accountability Offi(EQAO) in Ontario whose m andate includes province-wide literacy testinAll high school students are required to pass the standardized provincliteracy test in order to qualify for graduation. These high-stakes literatests, established by the conservative govemm ent, m easure a literacy that

paper-based, English-language-dependent, and culturally and historicalAnglocentric (Lotherington, 2004). EQAO test results have marginalized many students that standards are being adjusted for a large percentage currently failing students, including, leamers of English as a second laguage w ho are being educa ted in a political climate of literacy consideredEnglish gram m ar and Canad ian culture.

Language Com munication and Literacy Boundaries:What Four Skills?Decades ago. Heath's (1983) landmark ethnographic study of language aliteracy acquisition in two communities in the rural United States illustrat


6/16

tion the legitimacy of separating language "skills." Contemporary researchinto digital communication highlights the convergence of language modesand the emergence of dynamic new conventions in online communication

(Crystal, 2001; Kress, 2003; Lotherington & Xu, in press; Merchant, 2001),requiring new ways of conceptualizing language use.Although comp artmen talized four-skills approaches to language and lit-

eracy education are commonplace in contemporary English-language teach-ing (ELT) courses and materials, the four-skill areas historically dem arcatedas reading, writing, speak ing, and listening are artificial distinctions in digi-tal com munication w here the borders between oral and w ritten language areno longer clearly distinguishable. Communicating via digital media includessynchronous and asynchronous connection possibilities. In both modes, aliterate interface is used to effect communication although what is writtenmight be speech-like, giving digital communications characteristics of bothwritten and spoken language.

In synchronous use (e.g., chat room s, online instant m essaging systems),com munica tors are both or all present in real time. Synchronous chats differfrom face-to-face encounters in numerous ways including that conversation-al threads are typed on a keyboard, then sent instantaneously, resulting in adiscourse shape that can be topically chaotic, depending on the number of

interlocutors, the speed and synchronization of their turns , and the num berof topics on the go. Topical confusion is easy, as exemplified in Figure 1, inwhich two university students chatting on an instant messaging system tryto sort out which response relates to which in short turns.

Digital conversations are more legitimately seen as utterance overlaysthan as the utterance co-creations possible in face-to-face speech, as turns areinput in chunks. Digital chats are space limited, so turns tend to be quiteshort. As can be seen in Figure 1, synchronous com munications are closer tospeech than to wr iting in formality, style, and flow.

honeygarti (9:42:08 P M ): hihoneygarli {9:42: PM ): you there?sfcSCe/iiie (9:42:16 PM): awsk8Celine (9:42:20 PM ): ya, n ow i amhoneygarti (9:42:22 PM): I finished my essay revision shoneygarli (9:42:24 PM): wh y the a w?sk8Celine (9:42:35 PM): u pu t t ing ur ha nd in the garb ora terhoneygarti (9:42:39 PM ): oh, heh esk8Celine (9:42:42 PM): yay (abo ut essay)


7/16

Although transcripts of digital chats can be captured (which face-to-facspeech canno t be w ithou t the aid of a recording device), most digital chatend to be ephemeral. However, asynchronous communications are mor

permanent by design, and accordingly adhere more closely to writing-likconventions.In asynchronous com munications (e.g., e-mail, listservs, bulletin board

conference folders), both or all participants are not necessarily presenTherefore, each person 's t u m is as long or as short as desired, required, anso forth, and the potential to compose, edit, check spelling, and othemechanics in writing e-mailsunavailable in the rushed typing osynchronous chatspushes asynchronous communication closer to writinin terms of perm anence and formality. How ever, asynchronous com munications run the gamut from quickly tossed-off remarks intended to be part oan ongoing conversation to more conservatively written letters, using range of politeness and formality conventions. Interactions such as the intechange in Figure 2 indicate asymmetrical formality conventions in e-mailcommunication.

These new digital communication forums, which are conducive to range of language conventions and genres and easily tolerate asymmetricaresponses in terms of formality and use of conventional norms, push th

bou ndaries of the English language teacher's practical and academic understanding of the English language and its appropriate and correct use icommunicative domains.

As can be seen in the examples above, or l and liter te are invalid descriptors of either language process or prod uct in digital environm ents.

New Modes, Evolving Standards in Virtual Language UseFor centuries, English has reflected the archaic pronunciations of the 16tcentury when mechanical publishing established the spelling pattems wthink of as conven tional. Although there have been many worthy attem pts aspelling reform throughout the ages, they have met with only limited success.

Hi Professor. just would like to once again express our appreciation for having invited us to your class.It was a great leaming experience. Also, please extend our thanks to your class for their

warm reception.Sincerely,


8/16

Ta l l :

The Sh iw Alphabe t Read ing KeyThe Idlers arc tluctsilicd as Tall, Deep, Short, and Compound.

Beneath tach Icucr is in ftill name : i wand is shown a b o ld ij pc.

peep toe kick ftc thh t sure ehureh y hung

bib dea t Vow th ey Xoo mesSure Judjc Woe ha-ha

^

loll ml me if cjg a ih ado on wol ouc ah

are or air e rr arny ear Ian

Figure 3. The Shaw alphabet.http: //www ,unicode,org/pencl ing/shavian/proposal /Shavian,html

George Bernard Shaw s annoyance with the inefficiency of trad itiona l

English spelling and his interest in phonetics led him to institute a posthu-mous contest for a new streamlined non-Roman alphabet designed tosimplify the phonem e-graphem e relationship in English. The winning en tryby Kingsley Read (see Figure 3), though linguistically well designed, has notchanged publishing due to obvious pragmatic and attitudinal constraints,and remains predo minantly a curiosity (Coulmas, 1996).

The Americanization of the English language fought for passionately byNoah W ebster is the only historical attempt at spelling reform to achieve anysuccess by a significant English-speaking population. However, despite themany revisions codified in his best-selling 18th-century speller, only superfi-cial residual spelling variations have been culturally accepted, andAmericans continue to write everyday words such as laugh (revised by

dont m ess with me Iday or ill ghetto u up says :i gtg real soon cuz my ma is buggin me to clean u p :(~ ^ HeAtH~ * ^ * says:kk

dont mess with me 2day or ill ghetto u up says:2day has been a real bad day~ ^ HeAtH~ * ^ * says:


9/16

innovationspelling innovations

acronyms

emoticons

abbreviations

hybridized codes

innovations in capitalizationand punctuation

use of hom ophone salphabetic

numericalphanumeric

use of symbolic synonymy

variant stylistic spelling

example

brbt tyl:P:@plzppl~ ' *HeAtH~ * ' *Roxstar69impaddlerONFAINT

u

neways2b418r

gtgloi lmao hehe haha :) :-) :D :>sooooooowaaaay

meaning

be right backtalk to you latertongue hanging outm adpleasepeoplenamenameI 'mname(shouting)

youanywaysto, too, twobeforelaterg2ggot to goindicating laug htersmileyso (emphatic)way (emphatic)

Figure 5. Changing orthographic conventions in English in digitalenvironments (Lotherington Xu, in press).

Webster as laf), and bread (revised by Webster as bred), thought, and stationusing conventional spelling (Coulmas, 1996).

It is therefore astounding that in the space of about a decade, ICT hainspired radical changes in language conventions through grassroots usage

including prominently, spelling. Factors encouraging innovation in language conventions include time and space limitations of interactive mediaearly software case insensitivity, and the creative potential of the ASCIkeyboard (Lotherington & Xu, in press). These emerging conventions areeviden t across languages, and have spilled visibly into popu lar culture, as notice on pro du ct labels such as: got 2b me (shampoo); and STIFF@# % (haigel), and on public notices, such as Goodman 4 trustee (municipal electioncampaign).

In a stud y of changing languag e conventions in Chinese and English usedin digital environments conducted at York University in 2002-2003


10/16

NumericHomophone

520

88

Pinyinrealization

w u er ling^

ba ba

Pinyinquasi homophone

wo ai^ni

bai^bai^Figure 7 Chinese quasi homophones.

Meaning

I love you

bye bye

Lotherington and Xu (in press) found widespread changes in language useand usage across both languages indicating that digital language innovationis a phenom enon cutting across language ba rriers.

Radically changed orthographic conventions and identity markers insynchronous digital chats are evident in Figure 4. Changes to standard

orthographic conventions located in our study were multifaceted, as shownin Figure 5. Spelling conventions were variable over a range of standardprint-fixed to original online chat shorthand, and a range of logical pos-sibilities was accepted synonymously, even in the same chat, as can be seenin Figure 6, where honeygarli uses conventional capitalization, spelling, andpunctuation, and sk Celine does not for the same ph rase.

In our study, the use of innovative online chat forms tended to vary withthe age of the user, the younger users being more innovative, although notalways consistently so, and with the digital environment. Asynchronousinterfaces such as e-mail tended toward written language norms, whereassynchronous interfaces, limited by time constraints, tended toward innova-tive forms emulating speech. Space limitations such as small screenforexample, wireless telephone, pager, PDAand space limitations in chatentries also facilitated innovations as we found in Chinese, in which a rangeof numeric quasi-homophones had developed, ostensibly from pager com-munications in which num bers only could be used, as illustrated in Figure 7.

Crystal (2001) theorizes that Netspeak is a new mode of communication

apart from speech and writing. Whereas the evidence shows strongly thatlanguage conventions are clearly divergent from either speech or u^ritingonline, there is also a puzzling range of acceptable communication inNetspeak depending on factors such as the type of interface (synchronous,asynchronous connection), the hardware in use (computer, pager, mobilephone), the interlocutors (age, familiarity with each other, personal prefer-ences), and their reasons for communicating (chatting, request, informationtransfer). Indeed, online language stand ards are highly creative and tolerantof innovative form as well as careless typing, and as such are a movingtarget, making digital language prescription impossible, although dic-tionaries for such online innovations as emoticons are available (see


11/16

A Teenagers on M SN

It's hard love, b ut it s love alt the same. Not the stuff of fantasy but more than just a game, sayi have to go.

ok ill ttylIt s hard love, but it s love alt the same. Not the stuff of fantasy but more than just a game, saysi'U try to be on tomorrow nightYAY I'm Learning Kanjis says:

k

S University students on AIM

honeygarli (11:26:49 PM): I thought I wou ld for sure be done by 12 am , but that's for surenot happe ning now :-(sk8Celine 11:26:57 PM): ur essay 4 tomrow?honeygarli (11:27:01 PM): ya, I know, sorry for bothering you :-[ yesskSCeline (11:27:12 PM): s'ok - well, g'dux . ttylhoneygarli 11:27:18 PM): thanks, bye. good luck to you tooFigure 8 Divergent norms in online chat dyads.

space: the reduced sc reen/lin e capabilities in cell phon es, palm-heldcom puters and pagers necessitate shorthand;

time: the increased time available for editing and thinking inasynchronous environm ents facilitates w ritten text stand ards; and

speed: the conversational pace required in synchronous conversations iconducive of sh orthand .

As such, asynchron ous environments are more facilitative of standard texbased w riting conventions; synchronous environm ents are more facilitatiof emerging speech-emulation conventions.

Even in this range, it must be remembered that chat interlocutors oe m il correspondents communicating in a medium favoring particular con

ventional expectations and tolerances often use asymmetrical or divergenorm s. Although confusing, this too is normal digital language behavior; sFigures 2, 6, and 8, where conventional choices are individually consistebu t oriented to divergent norm s, resulting in a conversation where the coventional usage of one participant is consistently more formal (writinoriented) than that of the other.

In this confusing proliferation of new and variable communication standards, the legitimacy of defending traditional language skill boundaries anprint-fixed language n orm s is called into question.


12/16

Conclusion: Redefining Language and Literacy Standardsfor LT in the Digital Era

Language is no longer just gram mar, lexicon and semantics: languagenow comprises a wider range of semiotic systems that cut across read-ing, writing , viewing and sp eaking. (Snyder, 2002a, p . 3)

What are the repercussions of changing language conventions for Englishlanguage teaching in the digital era?

Recently, I attended a major intemational conference on language leam-ing and teaching where paper after paper discussing computer-assisted lan-guage leaming (CALL) presented language in Web-based and digitized

language courses according to established written norms. However, as isdem onstrated in this article, conservative prescriptive standa rds of correctwritten language developed over time across the highly socioeconomicallybiased terrain of prestige literary accomplishment have been radicallyreshaped by the Information Revolution. It is important for the ELT profes-sion to question the validity of existing prescriptive language standardsbased on written text, given the proliferation of digital technology thatmediates com munication in the 21st century. It is simply unethical to ignorethe parallel universe of virtual communication in a social climate wheremore and more basic everyday inquiries require the negotiation of digitalinterfaces.

The novelty and relative variability in spelling and other orthographicconventions in digital environments are relevant in the ELT classroom for anumber of reasons. Digital interfaces are increasingly essential socialliteracies; screen-size limitations facilitate abbreviated forms and tums, yetrequire a knowledge of approp riate formality. Digital language conventionsare also seeping into wider communicative use, including paper-based en-

vironm ents such as product labels and informal notes. Again, variable usagem ust be recognized as approp riate in context rather than judged as incorrectaccording to fixed textual standa rds .

Most impo rtant, language leam ers are frequently encouraged to practiceconversational skills in online environm ents where they will meet a range oflanguage conven tions. Digital comm tmication forums provide readily avail-able conversational opportunities for language leamers. However,analogous to pidginized speech forms, which are invented as need arises, theemerging vernacular digital communication conventions being developed inonline forums will be problematic to incorporate into formal language in-struction d ue to their relative instability Indeed digital media offer opportu-


13/16

four-skills analyses are typically used to explain the expected boundaries communication?

The Intemet provides second-language leamers with convenient e

posure to the target language. In virtual space, where second-languagleamers are not identified by telltale foreign accents, physical features, cultural dressthe typical distinguishing visual and auditory signs of tperson leam ing to speak a second languagethey are released from some the anxiety that characterizes conversation in the target language. But thcontem porary second-language learner wh o is advised to practice converstion in the anonymous environment of digital chat is sent to the frontiers new communication modes where revolutionary language conventions a

in growing use.The question must be tackled as to how the language learner negotiatthe acceptability of the varying language norm s, the correctness of whiconline is in the process of being established, are as appropriate as thoestablished on paper. These new and developing language use and usagconventions confront the language learner with confusing options. Hodoes the language teacher prep are the language leam er w ho is yet unsure written grammatical norms for online language variation?

These are questions that require th ought and experimentation. It is clethat virtual language use requires new communicative competences. Thtypical fours-skills paradigm supporting print literacies as they were coceived of as recently as a decade ago does not fit the complex digital literaciof the 21st century, w here new language d om ains cultivating new standarand g enres require new com municative competences and new literacies.

One proposal is to accept and understand that relative language stada rds such as spelling, gram m ar, and p unctua tion w ill be a new condition ofappropriate language use in virtual as well as real communication. Esta

lishing these standards and how they are taught will require ongoing clolinguistic and sociolinguistic monitoring, pedagogical experimentatioclose attention to learners' needs, and rewriting the four-skills paradigmNew ways of thinking about language and literacy must be recognized blanguage teaching professionals, materials designers, policymakers, angatekeeping assessment agencies whose pre-digital notions of literacy anlanguage proficiency are increasingly too rigid for contemporary communcation practices.

ot s

Thank you to Maya Woloszyn age 3 at the time of writing this note


14/16

The AuthorHeather Lotherington is an associate professor of multilingua l education a t York University anda past co-editor of the Canadian Modern Language Review. She has published widely on languag

and literacy educa tion in multilingual, multicultural contexts. For a num ber of years her researchhas focused on emerging multiliteracies.

ReferencesBaker, C. 2001). Foundations of bilingual education a n d bitingualism 3rd e d . ) . Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.Barton, D . 1994). An introduction t o t h e ecology of written language. Oxford, U K : Blackwell.Chapelle, C . 2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: F ound ations for teaching

testing a n d research. Cambridge, U K : Cam bridge University Press.Chapelle, C . 2003). English language learning a n d technology: Lectures o n applied linguistics i n t

a g e of information a n d communication technology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, P A : JohnBenjamins.Cope, B., Kalantzis, M. 2000). Introduction. Multiliteracies: The beginnings of an idea. In B.

Cope M . Kalantzis, Eds.), M ultiliteracies: Literacy learning a n d t h e design of social futures(pp . 3 -8) . London: Routledge.

Cope, B . , Kalantzis, M. 2003). Text made text. Altona, Victoria: Common Ground.Coulmas, F . 1996). T h e Blackwell encyclopedia of writing systems. Oxford, U K : Blackwell.Crystal, D . 2001). Language a n d t h e Internet. Cambridge, U K : Cam bridge University Press.Egbert, J., Ptrie, G. Eds.), in press). CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, N J: Erlbaum.G e e , J . P. 1996). Social linguistics a n d literacies: Ideology in discourses 2nd ed . ) . London: Taylor

Francis.Hawishe r, G.E., Seife, C L . 2000). Inventing post-m odem and transgressive literacypractices on the W e b. In G.E. Hawisher C.L. Seife Eds.), Global literacies a n d t h e WorldWide W e b pp. 277-289). London: Routledge .

Heath, S.B. 1983). Ways with words: Language, life a n d work in communities a n d classrooms.Cambridge, U K : Cam bridge University Press.

Herring, S.C. Ed.). 1996). Computer mediated communication: Linguistic, social a n d cross culturalperspectives. A ms terdam: John Benjamins.

Johnson-Eilola, J . 1997). Living on the surface: Learning in the age of global communicationnetworks. In I . Snyder Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into th e electronic e r a pp . 185-210St. Leona rds, N S W : Allen Unwin.

Kress, G . 2003). Literacy i n t h e neiv media a g e London: Routledge.Kress, G . 1997). Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated

com munication: The potentials of new forms of text. In I. Snyder Ed.), Page to screen:Taking literacy into th e electronic e r a ( p p . 53-79). St. Leonards, N S W : Allen Unwin.

Lankshear, C , Knobel, M . 1997). Literacies, texts and difference in the electronic a g e . In C.Lankshear, J .P. Gee, M . Knobel, C . Searle Eds.), Changing literacies pp . 133-163). MiltonKeynes, U K : Open University Press.

Lotherington, H. 2004). Em ergent m etaliteracies: What the Xbox has to offer the EQAO.Linguistics a n d Education, 14 3-4), 305-319.

Lotherington, H., Xu, Y . in press). How to chat in English and Chinese: Emerging digitallanguage conventions. ReCALL, 16 2).

Merchant, G . 2001). Teenagers in cyberspace: An investigation of language use and language


15/16

Sn yd er, I . (2002a). Silicon literacies. In I . Sny de r (E d.) , Silicon literacies: Com municationinnovation and education in the electronic age. London: Rout ledge .

Sn yd er, I . (Ed.) (2002b). Silicon literacies: Com munication innovation and education in the electronicage. L o n d on : Rou t l e dge .

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cam br idg e , UK: Cam br idge Unive r s i ty P ress .Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development ethnography and

education. L o n d o n : L o n g m a n .Warschauer, M. (1999) . Electronic literacies: Language culture and power in online education.

M a hw a h , N J : E r lba u m.W arsch auer , M., K em , R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: C oncepts and practice.

N ew York : Cam br id ge Unive r s i ty P ress .Who you callin ' l i terate? (2003). lobe an d Mail Apr i l 11 , p . A 21 .


16/16

Copyright of TESL Canada Journal is the property of TESL Canada Journal and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Standards for Digital Era

Documents

Transcript of Standards for Digital Era