New Literacies: Curricular Implications

  • Lotta LarsonEmail author
  • Elena Forzani
  • Donald J. Leu
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


This chapter explores the implications of a new literacies perspective for literacy research and practice, focusing on two specific challenges. First, it explores the challenges posed by the increased need to critically evaluate online information. With a diverse set of voices online, the absence of traditional gatekeepers requires an especially sophisticated level of critical evaluation by every reader and thus challenges each of us to read and think more critically. The new chapter addresses perspectives on critical evaluation in online environments, the importance of critically evaluating online texts, and the instructional implications of recent research in this area. Second, it explores challenges posed by the effective use of collaborative online learning projects that cross national and cultural borders. Today, schools are challenged to prepare students who can navigate and participate in a global society. The chapter addresses recent initiatives in online learning, the need for new literacies for successful global communication and collaboration, and the instructional implications of global collaborations. Developing critical users of information who can also interact with others on a global scale requires a focused commitment of schools to ensure that online information is integrated into the literacy and learning curriculum in effective ways.


New literacies Critical evaluation Credibility Collaborative online learning Global learning 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (n.d.). The Australian Curriculum, v7.0. Retrieved from
  3. Brand-Gruwel, S., & Gerjets, P. (2008). Instructional support for enhancing students’ information problem solving ability. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 615–622. Scholar
  4. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6–28. Scholar
  5. Camarota, S. A., & Zeigler, K. (2016, March). 61 million immigrants and their young children now live in the United States. Retrieved from Center for Immigration Studies website:
  6. Coiro, J., Coscarelli, C., Maykel, C., & Forzani, E. (2015). Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(3), 287. Scholar
  7. Dalton, B., & Proctor, P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on the literacies (pp. 297–324). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dwyer, B. (2016). Teaching and learning in the global village: Connect, create, collaborate, and communicate. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dwyer, B., & Larson, L. (2014). The writer in the reader: Building communities of response in digital environments. In K. E. Pytash & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Exploring technology for writing and writing instruction (pp. 202–220). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eastin, M. S., Yang, M.-S., & Nathanson, A. I. (2006). Children of the net: An empirical exploration into the evaluation of internet content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farmer, L. S. J. (2015). Global literacy at the local school library. Library Media Connection, 33(5), 6–8.Google Scholar
  12. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2010). Kids and credibility: An empirical examination of youth, digital media use, and information credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Forzani, E. (2015, April). Investigating the effects of gender and socioeconomic status on students’ ability to critically evaluate online information in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Forzani, E. (2016). Individual differences in evaluating the credibility of online information in science: Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability. Retrieved from University of Connecticut Digital Commons. (1242).Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, T. (2007). The world is flat 3.0: A brief history of the twenty-first century (3rd ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar
  16. Goldman, S., Braasch, J., Wiley, J., Graesser, A., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381. Scholar
  17. Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2010). Non-science majors’ critical evaluation of websites in a biotechnology course. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 19, 612–620. Scholar
  18. Hogan, N., & Vernhagen, C. (2012). Critical appraisal of information on the web in practice: Undergraduate students’ knowledge, reported use, and behavior. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  19. International Organization for Migration. (2016). 2015 global migration trends factsheet. Berlin: Global Migration Data Analysis Centre. Retrieved from Scholar
  20. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from
  21. Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics. (2017). Retrieved from
  22. Judd, V. C., Farrow, L. I., & Tims, B. J. (2006). Evaluating public web site information: A process and an instrument. Reference Service Review, 34(1), 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kervin, L., Mantei, J., & Leu, D. (in press). Repositioning online reading to a central location in the language arts. To appear in D. Lapp & D. Fischer (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English Language Arts 4th Edition. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 75–95. Retrieved from Scholar
  25. Kiili, C., Leu, D., Marttunen, M., Hautala, J., & Leppänen, P. (2017). Exploring early adolescents’ evaluation of academic and commercial online sources related to health. Reading and Writing. Early online publication.
  26. Kist, W. (2013). The global school: Connecting classrooms and students around the world. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  27. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuiper, E., & Volman, M. (2008). The web as a source of information for students in K–12 education. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 241–246). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. London: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  30. Larson, L. C. (2009). Reader response meets new literacies: Empowering readers in online learning communities. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 638–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larson, L., & Brown, J. S. (2017). Preparing global-ready teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 53(3), 110–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larson, L., & Dwyer, B. (2015). Digging deeper with reader response: Using digital tools to support comprehension of literary texts in online learning environments. In T. Rasinski, K. E. Pytash, & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Using technology to enhance reading: Innovative approaches to literacy instruction (pp. 121–130). Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  33. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Leu, D. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 743–770). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (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: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 1–23. Newark: International Literacy Association. Retrieved from
  37. Lindsay, J. (2016). The global educator: Leveraging technology for collaborative learning & teaching. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  38. Lindsay, J. (2016/2017). Online collaboration: How to start. Educational Leadership, 74(4), 37–41.Google Scholar
  39. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mansilla, V. B., & Jackson, A. W. (2014). Educating for global competence: Redefining learning for an interconnected world. In H. H. Jacob (Ed.), Mastering global literacy (pp. 5–29). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  41. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). English language learners in public schools. Retrieved from
  43. National Council of Teachers of English. (2008/2013). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies. Retrieved from
  44. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Global competence for an inclusive world. Retrieved from
  45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line: Digital technologies and performance (Volume VI). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. Scholar
  46. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2014). Framework for state action on global education. Retrieved from
  47. Richardson, W. (2016/2017). Getting schools ready for the world. Educational Leadership, 74(4), 24–29.Google Scholar
  48. Ripp, P. (n.d.) Global read aloud: One book to connect the world. Retrieved from
  49. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59. Retrieved from Scholar
  50. Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The content-source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Stanford History Education Group (November 22, 2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic responsibility. Retrieved from
  53. Strømsø, H. L., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 176–203. Scholar
  54. Tolisano, S. R. (2014). The globally connected educator: Talking to the world – not just about the world. In H. H. Jacob (Ed.), Mastering global literacy (pp. 31–51). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  55. U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Advancing civic learning and engagement in democracy: A road map and call to action. Retrieved from
  56. UNESCO. (2014). The state of broadband 2014: Broadband for all. Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from Scholar
  57. Wallace, K. (April 3, 2017). Is ‘fake news’ fooling kids? New report says yes. CNN. Retrieved from
  58. Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Solloway, E. (2000). Science on the web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75–104. Scholar
  59. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 623–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez, C., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106. Scholar
  61. Zeidler, D. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101. Scholar
  62. Zhang, M. (2013). Supporting middle school students’ online reading of scientific resources: Moving beyond cursory, fragmented, and opportunistic reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 138–152. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Boston UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Joke Voogt
    • 1
  • Ola Erstad
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Child Development and EducationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations