2 authors: Gina Biancarosa University of Oregon 49

Conclusion

Our aim in this article has been to examine how today’s changing technological landscape offers both promise and challenges to literacy instruction. The question is not how to fit technology into education but how literacy education can meet society’s increasing
demand for technology-savvy citizens who possess higher levels of literacy skills and background knowledge. Our intent has been to highlight issues that educators, research- ers, and policy makers must consider in responding to those demands.

The good news is that e-reading technology offers many tools for mitigating both old and new literacy challenges. But e-reading technology tools are just that—tools. To be effective, they must be wielded with care and precision. Not every nail requires a nail gun; sometimes a hammer will do. Similarly, not every literacy problem requires e-reading technology to solve it. Although e-reading technology can be used to deliver rich and meaningful content, it may not support learning unless thoughtful human beings are guiding its use.

We believe that e-reading technology tools can help to improve literacy outcomes for all children and youth. In creating policies and investing in e-reading technology, policy makers, administrators, and educators must ensure the technology’s adherence to the Universal Design for Learning concept, attend carefully to the technology’s evidence base, provide the infrastructure the technol- ogy requires, and take maximum advantage of the increased efficiency and volume of information that technology provides.

Endnotes

1. 
   “Tablet Adoption Drives Ereader Sales by 400%,” Online Marketing Trend (www.onlinemarketing-trends. com/2011/03/tablet-adoption-drives-ereader-sales-by.html).
   
2. 
   “One in Six Americans Now Use e-Reader with One in Six Likely to Purchase in Next Six Months,” Wall Street Journal (professional.wsj.com/article/TPPRN0000020110919e79j000fw.html).
   
3. 
   “The Coming of Age of Ebooks: Infographic,” Online Marketing Trends (www.onlinemarketing-trends
   

.com/2011/06/coming-of-age-of-ebooks-infographic.html).

4. 
   “Apple Launches iPad 2,” Apple Press Info (www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/03/02Apple-Launches-iPad-2
   

.html).

5. 
   Ibid.
   

6. 
   “One in Three Online Consumers to Use a Tablet by 2014,” Daily E-Marketer (www.emarketer.com
   

/Article.aspx?R=1008701).

7. 
   Lynn Anderson and Mark Horney, “Supported eText: Assistive Technology through Text Transformations,”
   

Reading Research Quarterly 42, no. 1 (2007): 153–60.

8. 
   “The 19th International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2011 Proceedings” (122.155.1.128
   

/icce2011/program/proceedings/icce2011_main_proceedings_individual.htm#C1).

9. 
   Nonie Lesaux, “Reading and Reading Instruction for Children from Low-Income and Non-English- Speaking Households,” Future of Children 22, no. 2 (2012).
   
10. 
    Kristen Purcell, “E-reader Ownership Doubles in Six Months: Adoption Rate of E-readers Surges Ahead of Tablet Computers,” Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project (pewinternet.org/~/media
    

/Files/Reports/2011/PIP_eReader_Tablet.pdf).

11. 
    Ibid.; Lee Rainie, “Tablet and E-book Reader Ownership Nearly Doubles Over the Holiday Gift-Giving Period,” Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project (pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/ Reports/2011/PIP_eReader_Tablet.pdf).
    
12. 
    Ibid.
    

13. 
    Sean F. Reardon, Rachel A. Valentino, and Kenneth A. Shores, “Patterns of Literacy among U.S. Students,” Future of Children 22, no. 2 (2012); see also Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob L. Vigdor, “Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and Student Achievement,” Duke University, July 29, 2008.
    
14. 
    Mark Warschauer and Tina Matuchniak, “New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use and Outcomes,” Review of Research in Education 34 (2010): 179–223.
    
15. 
    Ibid.
    

16. 
    Ibid.
    

17. 
    Susan Goldman, “Adolescent Literacy: Learning and Understanding Content,” Future of Children 22, no. 2 (2012).
    

18. 
    Interactive whiteboards can store an individual’s interactions with them to an external computing device and replay them again later. The external device can also project, modify, store, and replay computer images. Clickers are portable devices held by students that resemble remote controls; they allow teachers to poll students and have students respond by clicking a button. Student responses can be tallied and tracked to allow the teacher to monitor student understanding and are also intended to increase classroom interactions.
    
19. 
    For example, see Bette Chambers and others, “Achievement Effects of Embedded Multimedia in a Success for All Reading Program,” Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (2006): 232–37.
    
20. 
    Maria T. de Jong and A. G. (Jeanet) Bus, “Quality of Book-Reading Matters for Emergent Readers: An Experiment with the Same Book in a Regular or Electronic Format,” Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2002): 145–55; Carston Elbro and others, “Teaching Reading to Disabled Readers with Language Disorders: A Controlled Evaluation of Synthetic Speech Feedback,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 37 (1996): 140–55; Ofra Korat and Adina Shamir, “Electronic Books versus Adult Readers: Effects on Children’s Emergent Literacy as a Function of Social Class,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23 (2006): 248–59; Ofra Korat and Adina Shamir, “The Educational Electronic Book as a Tool for Supporting Children’s Emergent Literacy in Low versus Middle SES Groups,” Computers & Education 50 (2008): 110–24; A. Geoffrey Abelson and Marcia Peterson, “Efficacy of ‘Talking Books’ for Group of Reading Disabled Boys,” Perceptual and Motor Skills 57 (1983): 567–70; Ernester Balajthy, “Text-to-Speech Software for Helping Struggling Readers,” Reading Online (www.readingonline.org/articles/balajthy2); Julie Montali and Lawrence Lewandowski, “Bimodal Reading: Benefits of a Talking Computer for Average and Less Skilled Readers,” Journal of Learning Disabilities 29 (1996): 271–79; Bart Pisha and Peggy Coyne, “Jumping off the Page: Content Area Curriculum for the Internet Age,” Reading Online (www.readingonline.org/articles/pisha).
    
21. 
    Dave L. Edyburn, “Technology Enhanced Reading Performance: Defining a Research Agenda,” Reading Research Quarterly 42, no. 1 (2007): 146–52.
    
22. 
    Ofra Korat, “Reading Electronic Books as a Support for Vocabulary, Story Comprehension, and Word Reading in Kindergarten and First Grade,” Computers and Education 55, no. 1 (2010): 24–31.
    
23. 
    A. G. (Jeanet) Bus and others, “How Onscreen Storybooks Contribute to Early Literacy,” in Multimedia and Literacy Development: Improving Achievement for Young Learners, edited by A. G. Bus and S. B. Neuman (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 2009), pp. 153–67.
    
24. 
    For review, see Richard K. Olson and Barbara Wise, “Computer-Based Remediation for Reading and Related Phonological Disabilities,” in International Handbook of Literacy and Technology, vol. 2, edited by Michael C. McKenna and others (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2006), pp. 57–74.
    
25. 
    Richard K. Olson and others, “Computer-Based Reading Remedial Training in Phoneme Awareness and Phonological Decoding: Effects on the Posttraining Development of Word Recognition,” Scientific Studies of Reading 1 (1997): 235–53; Barbara Wise and others, “Individual Differences in Gains from Computer- Assisted Remedial Reading with More Emphasis on Phonological Analysis or Accurate Reading in Context,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 73 (2000): 197–235.
    
26. 
    Marian J. A. J. Verhallen and others, “The Promise of Multimedia Stories for Kindergartner Children at Risk,” Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (2006): 410–19.
    

27. 
    Korat and Shamir, “The Educational Electronic Book as a Tool for Supporting Children’s Emergent Literacy in Low Versus Middle SES Groups” (see note 20).
    
28. 
    Jack Mostow and others, “4-Month Evaluation of a Learner-Controlled Reading Tutor that Listens,” in The Path of Speech Technologies in Computer Assisted Language Learning: From Research Toward Practice, edited by V. M. Holland and F. P. Fisher (New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 201–19.
    
29. 
    G. Ayorkor Korsah and others, “Improving Child Literacy in Africa: Experiments with an Automated Reading Tutor,” Information Technologies and International Development 6 (2010): 1–19.
    
30. 
    Marilyn J. Adams, “The Promise of Automatic Speech Recognition for Fostering Literacy Growth in Children and Adults,” in International Handbook of Literacy and Technology, vol. 2, edited by McKenna and others, pp. 109–28.
    
31. 
    Cohen’s weighted d = 0.31; Tricia A. Zucker and others, “The Effects of Electronic Books on Pre- Kindergarten-to-Grade 5 Students’ Literacy and Language Outcomes: A Research Synthesis,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 40 (2009): 47–87.
    
32. 
    Yao-Ting Sung and others, “Improving Children’s Reading Comprehension and Use of Strategies through Computer-Based Strategy Training,” Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008): 1552–71.
    
33. 
    C. Patrick Proctor and others, “Improving Comprehension Online: Effects of Deep Vocabulary Instruction with Bilingual and Monolingual Fifth Graders,” Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 24 (2011): 517–44.
    
34. 
    John W. Warren, “The Progression of Digital Publishing: Innovation and the Evolution of e-Books,”