New perspectives on reading and writing across the disciplines

Abstract

There's a level of public anxiety that at times approaches moral panic around the argument that those born into a digital age have lost the ability as well as the desire to read or write long-form text. That anxiety haunts higher education, too. From rigorous research in the reading-heavy disciplines to conversations among colleagues after class, the internet is often held as responsible for the failure of too many of our students to be able to read enough disciplinary material in enough depth to allow them to take the next steps in the dialogic that constitutes a university education. We look to research that suggests that to blame changing technology is at best an oversimplification. While the capacity to deep read complex texts and to respond orally and in writing are foundational skills that are complicated by the rise of digital technologies, research on what has come to be termed reading non-compliance suggests the problem is of much longer standing. The ways in which we engage text may have changed, but the failure to read for class preceded digital technologies and their distractions (Hobson). We argue we can best serve our students now by encouraging biliteracy (Wolf and Barzillai) so they are able to shift between the reading-for-information that involves scanning, clicking, and linking, and the deep, immersive reading vital for the rich and productive engagement that enables critical, creative, and ethical learning.

Toward a Multifaceted Heuristic of Digital Reading to Inform Assessment, Research, Practice, and Policy

“…Collectively, these studies provided important information about print‐ and screen‐based differences when reading static paragraphs of text. Yet, large‐scale efforts that simplify the challenges inherent in digital reading and response impede our understanding of other authentic digital reading practices moving forward (Seaboyer & Barnett, 2019; Wolf & Barzillai, 2009). Future research efforts must now focus on naming, defining, categorizing, and researching other indicators beyond the medium of text delivery that are likely to influence comprehension processes and outcome measures in digital reading contexts.…”

“…That is, digital reading demands skills in using and producing media, or what is known as multimediating (Doneman, 1997; see also Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), in addition to what Wolf (2018) coined as biliteracy , or the ability to shift between reading for information that involves browsing, linking, and scanning with efficiency and the deep, reflective reading that happens when readers slow down and think more critically. Seaboyer and Barnett (2019) highlighted the importance of fostering the coexistence of expertise for both reading purposes. Ultimately, our conception of digital reading should encompass both cognitive and affective purposes for reading that merge social and academic settings (Moje, Dillon, & O’Brien, 2000; O’Brien & Bauer, 2005).…”

Exploring Instances of Deleuzian Rhizomatic Patterns in Students’ Writing and in Online Student Interactions

“…Several such studies have also been conducted in Australia, with a specific focus on genre (Elashri & Ibrahim, 2013;Iyer, 2018;Seaboyer & Barnett, 2019;Tuan, 2011). These studies were concerned with socializing students into the type of texts used in their respective fields of studies, so that they would then be able to emulate such texts in their own writing.…”

Implementing Digital-Mediated Extensive Reading for Agriculture Students in Post-Pandemic: Inspiration from The Online Teaching

“…Teaching reading in tertiary education is one of the sectors that has been affected by that shift. Reading is commonly acknowledged as critical to student learning (e.g., Manarin, 2018;Seaboyer and Barnett, 2019). Many university courses are structured around textbooks, and the course information tells students that they should be ready to do much reading.…”