Week 2 - Assignment: Apply Critical Reading and Techniques for Notes

26

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

Harnessing research-based practices to critique ‘truth’ Deidre Clary and Michelle Bannister-Tyrrell | University of New England

A B S T R A C T

More than ever, students need to acquire the critical thinking skills of a discerning reader to navigate digital news texts. Recent studies suggest that young people lack the ability to uncover underlying messages and critically evaluate online content. This article interrogates ways to help students analyse and critique ‘truth’ in a world bombarded by ‘fake news’. As well, it reports on ways teachers might articulate and enact pedagogies grounded in new literacies that engender a healthy scepticism of online texts.

What is ‘truth’? How is it presented and represented, by whom, and in whose interests?

Who should have access to which images and words, texts, and discourses? For what purposes? Allan Luke, 2012

Introduction The world that our students are navigating, negotiating and attempting to reconcile is radically changing. How knowledge is gathered, constructed and shared demands from our students an ability to think more deeply and critically than ever before. Educational researchers, policy makers, world agencies and private enterprise agree that, in addition to content knowledge, students need to acquire particular skills to equip them for a future-focused world of work, where they need to be able to think well. (Hughes, 2015).

Increasingly, education systems are searching for ways to equip students with 21st century skills and dispositions essential for engagement in a VUCA world (Taguma & Anger, 2016; Taguma & Rychen, 2016). The acronym VUCA stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, and is increasingly used to describe today’s world. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has launched The Future of Education and Skills 2030 project to ‘equip learners with agency and a sense of purpose, and the competencies they need, to shape their own lives and contribute to the lives of others’ (OECD, 2018b, p. 2).

The Australian Curriculum addresses the development of 21st century skills through the General Capabilities (GC); a key dimension of the multidimensional Australian Curriculum. Critical and creative thinking comprise one of the seven general capabilities across the F-10 curriculum. Students are expected to develop critical and creative thinking skills as they move through the years of schooling. The Australian Curriculum explicitly details these skills. How and where these skills are taught is the prerogative of the individual school and/or teacher.

Critical thinking is described in the Australian Curriculum as ‘students learning to recognise or develop an argument, use evidence in support of that argument, draw reasoned conclusions, and use information to solve problems’ (ACAR A, 2018a, para 5). By the end of year 8, students are expected to be able to critically analyse information and evidence from multiple sources, per the Critical and Creative Thinking learning continuum (ACAR A, 2018b).

Although teaching critical and creative thinking skills is addressed in the Australian Curriculum, little is known about how these skills are taught and the extent to which they are assessed in Australian

27

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

schools. For the first time in 2015, PISA testing included an assessment of students’ collaborative problem-solving skills. Australian students performed well, placing 10th with 532 points behind New Zealand with 533 points. The OECD reported that Australian students – together with those in New Zealand, Japan, Korea and the United States performed much better in this assessment than would be expected, based on their scores in the PISA 2015 science, reading and mathematics tests. The OECD currently leads a major study into the assessment of creative and critical thinking, involving 14 countries (OECD, 2018a). While these findings are encouraging, teachers must continue to focus on where and from whom information is obtained and critical thinking.

What is ‘truth’? Luke’s (2012) pertinent question, ‘What is ‘truth’?’ asked above, serves to remind us that we live in a world of human relationships imbued with memory and history. Luke argues that truth is impacted by

the danger of autocratic control of information, and the moral imperative of critique. Struggles over power are, indeed, struggles over the control of information and interpretation. Wherever textual access, critique, and interpretation are closed down, whether via corporate or state or religious control of the press, of the Internet, of server-access, of the archive of knowledge – from the first libraries of Alexandria to Google – human agency, self-determination, and freedom are put at risk (pp. 4–5).

Luke (2012) cautions educators to interrogate the curriculum and our pedagogical practices, specifically ‘whose version of culture, history and everyday life will count as official knowledge’ (p. 4).

Navigating a ‘post-truth’ world demands an understanding of knowledge as problematic, an ever-evolving body of information that is constructed, and therefore susceptible to political, social and cultural influences and activity. An emerging trend suggests that young people are ‘sceptical about the concept of objectivity’ and instead, take advice from public figures, Facebook, and blogs where ‘facts’ are aligned with ‘opinion, critique and commentary’ (Marchi, 2012, p.  258). Therefore, young people need critical thinking skills and fact-checking tools to distinguish what is real and what is fiction (Kiely & Robertson, 2016).

Recent research into literacy engagement in online and hybrid environments proposes endowing learners with a healthy scepticism as they engage with unfamiliar content, ideas or perspectives in digital and traditional media spaces. A healthy scepticism involves thinking critically, informed by critical literacy theories and pedagogies that encourage learners to actively analyse texts to uncover if what they are reading has been tested (O’Byrne, 2012; 2017).

Thinking like a scientist can serve as a useful scaffold. A scientist approaches a problem empirically, not ideologically, drawing on empirical data to determine and verify what has been found. Similarly, discerning readers exhibit critical thinking skills such as problem-solving, decision-making, interpretation, logical reasoning and metacognition. They carefully consider the information they have collected as they scrutinise a problem or statement. They test or fact-check, excluding belief or opinion that cannot be tested, during a process of appraisal.

Yet, we are aware that information cannot merely be tested. It is ideological, situated and culturally bound. Freire (Freire & Macedo,1987) discusses the importance of reading the word and reading the world in which the information is presented. Luke (2000) advocates this view of critical literacy; a view where students discuss how the texts found and read position culture, gender, identity and therefore, power.

How often do learners engage in learning that requires them to filter information, interpret, apply logical reasoning and critique bodies of new knowledge, or alternative facts that creep into the knowledge-based economy (OECD, 1996)?

We now report on a growing body of research around new literacies and young peoples’ reading practices online, and revisit the Four Resources model developed by Freebody and Luke (1990) as a framework to foster different levels of comprehension. We also suggest ways of equipping students with

28

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

the critical literacy skills required to critique truth in a post-truth world bombarded by ‘fake news’ and suggest how teachers might articulate and enact new learning pedagogies to support students’ literacy development. Finally, we argue that future learning will require proficiency in new literacies and technologies destined to determine student success in school and life.

Changing literacies – a research base Increasingly, teachers recognise that adolescents possess digital literacies beyond the realm of some of their teachers’ knowledge and skills (Skerrett & Bomer, 2011). Researchers have documented young peoples’ engagement in highly sophisticated literacy practices at home, in out-of-school activities (Black, 2008; Hagood, 2008) and on the Internet (Black & Steinkuehler, 2009). Key scholars and researchers of new literacies have theorised and interrogated the changing nature of literacy in a range of social contexts and activities (Coiro et al., 2008; Freebody, Luke & Gilbert, 1991; Lankshear, Gee, Knobel & Searle, 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Leu et al., 2007; Street, 1984).

Researchers of new literacies have identified essential skills, strategies, and dispositions for students’ successful use of ever-changing information and communication technologies (ICTs) and continuously evolving contexts that have the capacity to impact our digitally-driven lives. These new literacies enable learners to use the Internet and other software programs to ‘identify important questions, locate information, critically evaluate the usefulness of that information, synthesise information to answer those questions, and then successfully communicate the answers to others’ (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004, p. 1572).

New literacies of online research and comprehension afford a better understanding of learners’ online habits as they conduct research, solve problems, and answer questions. Essentially, online reading comprehension is online research. Five processing practices define online research and comprehension, each adopting new skills and strategies as they occur online: (1) reading to identify important questions, (2) reading to locate information, (3) reading to evaluate information critically, (4) reading to synthesise information, and (5) reading and writing to communicate information (Leu, Zawilinski, Forzani & Timbrell, 2014, p. 346.).

Young people’s reading practices online – an evidence base Research suggests that today’s learners are skilled in accessing material online. Nonetheless, their technological skills do not necessarily extend to an effective use of online information. Data show that students lack online critical reading evaluation skills (Bennet, Maton & Kervin, 2008; Forzani & Maykel, 2013) and the essential reading skills to locate information online (Kuiper & Volman, 2008). In the past decade, research into the nature and frequency of school internet use has reinforced what we know about adolescents’ out-of-school online use; notably, proficient adolescent readers spend considerable time online, usually engaged with social networks, texting, video and gaming.

Notwithstanding, little is known about how older, more proficient readers use online information to construct meaning and develop new knowledge (Kervin, Mantei & Leu, 2018). International studies such as PISA (OECD, 2011) and ICILS (IEA, 2013) and research undertaken by OECD countries (e.g. Finland, Norway, France, Australia and the United States) confirm that older more proficient readers are increasingly using online information to acquire knowledge (IEA, 2013). As well, 14 year-old’s in different nations show a greater range in their ability with online research and comprehension.

More recent studies into young people’s online practices in the United States and Australia suggest that young people lack the critical thinking skills to navigate digital news texts. A study conducted by Stanford University (USA) researchers found that elementary, middle, and high school students have difficulty judging the credibility of online news (Wineburg, McGrew, Breakstone & Ortega, 2016). The researchers found that young people display an inability to reason about information sourced from

29

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

the Internet. For example, some easily confused ‘news’ articles with actual advertisements on websites. Young people were easily led by the high ranking of a source of information on the Internet search results rather than by the source of the information itself. Arguably, the Stanford study highlights the perceived inability of the American educational system to endow students with knowledge of how media affects their daily lives and thinking processes. While students are able to access information from a range of sources, they lack ‘the mental tools to determine the validity of what the sources deliver’ (Golding, 2017, para 8).

In Australia, the first nationally representative survey was conducted in 2017 to determine young peoples’ news engagement practices (Notley, Dezuanni, Zhong & Howden, 2017a Paragraph 1 Key Findings). The survey sampled 1,000 respondents aged 8 to 16. The survey was partly motivated by the magnitude of academic and public claims about the significance of the reach of ‘fake news’ via social media. For this survey, ‘fake news’ was defined as news that is deliberately misleading. The survey found that one third of respondents felt they could distinguish fake news from real news; another third felt they could not make the distinction, and the remaining third were uncertain about their ability. The researchers concluded that young Australians are consuming an enormous quantity of news online; however, many are not critiquing this news or they lack the skills to do so. This is a staggering finding, and in keeping with the Stanford University research.

Reproduced here are key findings from the Australian survey (Notley & Dezuanni, 2017b):

• Age is a determinant. As students get older, they exude more confidence in distinguishing fake news from real news.

• Young Australians are less disposed to validating the accuracy of news they access online. • Young Australians place a low priority on thinking about the origin of news stories,

particularly those accessed online. • Young people do not rate social media as the preferred news source. Just over one-third

accessed news on social media. Facebook was rated the most popular social media platform for accessing news, and YouTube was used as the ‘go to’ social media platform for accessing news. The most frequent source was family, followed by television, teachers, friends, social media, radio and print newspapers. (Key Findings, 2017)

The finding that young people often use a friend as the closest source of news is significant. Based on two decades of research, Sundar (2016) explains that the tendency to trust our friends weakens our cognitive filters, ‘making a social media feed fertile ground for fake news to sneak into our consciousness’ (para, 17). Sundar concludes that the strong appeal of students’ peers over experts makes them vulnerable to just accepting the news found in their personal space.

Increasingly, online destinations utilise tools that enable users to customise sites to suit personal interests and identity. Sudar’s research indicates that users are less sceptical of information that circulates in customised environments. In a recent study, Kang and Sundar (2016) investigated whether ‘self-as- source’ changed how users process information received through customised interfaces. A between- subjects experiment (N = 146) was designed to carry out this inquiry. Fake health news stories were introduced into the users’ portals. Data indicate that users who customised their own online news portal tended to accept the news of themselves. These same users were less likely to scrutinise the fake news and more likely to believe it. Overall, data show that users displayed a strong inclination to act on the advice offered in the news stories and advised their friends do the same. This research goes some way to explain why ‘fake news’ flourishes on social media – where students are connected to friends and peers and have absolute power over curated pages reflective of their identity.

The phenomenon of ‘fake news’ Fake news stories have the capacity to reach ‘more people more quickly via social media than what

30

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

good old-fashioned viral emails could accomplish in years past’ (Kiely & Robertson, 2016, para 1). Fake news is not a new phenomenon, having been linked to political satire, fiction and

efforts to fool readers and viewers into thinking that their news is real. In a short span of time, fake news has become ‘more sophisticated, often presented on a site designed to look (sort of) like a legitimate news organisation’ (Kiely & Robertson, 2016, para 7). For example, considerable online content is manufactured by algorithms and bots (automated accounts, rather than real people) with the capability of responding to trends in posts and searches for the purpose of promoting more personalised and targeted content and advertising (Glance, 2016). Fake news is fast becoming more palpable and invasive in our digitally-driven lives.

Empowering critical readers – an Australian perspective Thinking critically demands that readers extend their reach in obtaining meaning from a text to understanding how meaning is manipulated in particular ways. Critical literacies are central to new literacies (Leu, et al., 2013). Since all texts – print and digital – are authored for a specific purpose, which is not always apparent, readers need to develop and enact critical skills to filter what they understand and believe from texts. In an increasingly sophisticated digital world, readers are frequently bombarded by language that is not only ambiguous but also purposely misleading and manipulative. Readers are tasked to use tools for uncovering the purposes of language within a particular text so they can discern the biases. The Four Resources model for reading, developed by Freebody and Luke (1990; 1999), offers a four-tiered approach to reading that encourages different levels of reading (see Figure 1).

Coding Practices: Developing Resources as a Code Beaker – How do I crack this text? How does it work? What are its patterns and conventions? How do the sounds and the marks relate, singly and in combinations?

Text-Meaning Practices: Developing Resources as a Text Participant – How do the ideas represented in the text string together? What cultural resources can be brought to bear on the text? What are the cultural meanings and possible readings that can be constructed from this text?

Pragmatic Practices: Developing Resources as Text User – How do the uses of this text shape its composition? What do I do with this text, here and now? What will others do with it? What are my options and alternatives?

Critical Practices: Developing Resources as Text Analyst and Critic – What kind of person, with what interests and values, could both write and read this naively and unproblematically? What is this text trying to do to me? In whose interests? Which positions, voices and interests are at play? Which are silent and absent?

Figure 1. Four Resources Model of Critical Reading. Luke 2000

The Four Resources Model incorporated in English curriculums across Australia, the United States and parts of Europe was developed in the L1 Australian context and based on an understanding that language is a resource rather than a set of rules (Halliday, 1985). The model expands the definition of reading from a simple model of decoding printed texts to a model of constructing meaning and analysing texts in sociocultural contexts. It has application to any text  – print or digital  – and enables teachers and students to utilise opportunities in the curriculum to explore alternative ways of structuring practices around texts.

Endowed with research and theories from ‘visual culture, semiotics, critical media studies, grammars of visual design and multimodal analysis’, Frank Serafini’s (2012) reconceptualisation of the four resources model to ‘four resources or social practices for reading–viewing multi-modal texts’ identifies the four resources or social practices assigned to the reader-viewer as: (1) navigator, (2) interpreter, (3) designer and (4) interrogator (p.  150). The aforementioned models afford readers with essential resources (or roles) for uncovering how these texts are positioning them and possible discrepancies in what they are reading.

31

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

Building teachers’ capacities A recent study reports that Australian teachers need to understand how to better support students in a digital age (Notley, Dezuanni, Zhong & Howden, 2017a). Foremost, they need to recognise and analyse the complex literate demands of a 21st century learner. More than ever, based on recent international studies, students need to demonstrate mastery of new literacy skills – critical thinking, problem-solving, collaborating with peers, and using digital technology. Teachers are expected to support their students’ literacy development of 21st century skills in ever-changing contexts. They must do this through ‘their (teachers’) own proficiencies with technology’ and effectively integrate new technologies into the curriculum, hence preparing students for the ‘literacy future they deserve’ (International Reading Association, 2009; Lawrence, 2013). More and more, teachers need to acquire a clear understanding of 21st century literacy and an ability to articulate pedagogically grounded practices designed to foster new literacy skills for improving student learning (International Reading Association, 2009; Lawrence 2013). They need to engage in both learning new literacies (themselves) and how to embed them in their daily instruction (Fisher, Frey & Gonzalez, 2010).

Teachers can strengthen out-of-school and in-school connections through the following strategies:

• Metaconversations in which teacher and students explore the features of out-of-school literacy practices and their application for in-school literacy tasks

• Teacher-led classroom opportunities for all students to share aspects of their outside-of-school literate lives in ways that affirm their literate identities

• Purposefully designed instruction around adolescents’ out-of-school literacies that supports collaborative and independent work with the goal of deepening in-school literacy engagement and learning.

We now detail some practical and engaging strategies educators might employ, and are employing, to guide students towards becoming discerning readers who can determine fact from opinion, and ask, ‘What approaches or resources are available to complement educators’ efforts?’ and ‘How might educators use pedagogy to keep pace with adolescents’ out-of-school literacies in ways that position students as change agents?’

Practical strategies and suggestions The Internet is ripe with good ideas and practical suggestions for arming teachers with ways to help their students distinguish credible from fraudulent news. Some are reproduced here and include workable strategies from educators worldwide.

• Introduce news-related terms into the curriculum. Enabling students to distinguish terms such as ‘news’ and ‘fake news’ can be sufficiently empowering to stimulate their questions. Higher order thinking associated with defining terms such as bias and credibility, with respect to news’ stories, can involve identifying examples and discussing how these terms feature in students’ interpretations and communication of the news. Emphasise the importance of source verification. Asking students to investigate if a shared ‘news’ story is published on multiple mainstream news outlets is one way of determining ‘fake news’. Checking the story with multiple outlets uncovers if the news story is factual before acknowledging it as fact. Getting students acquainted with reputable news organisations is key to determining a news story’s credibility; such news organisations are solicitous about their sources, and rarely publish a story without a secondary source. If a story really did happen, multiple reliable news organisations will cover the topic. Asking students to determine factual websites as opposed to websites that provide pure entertainment – since URLs can be deceptively alike – helps students to differentiate between real and fake news sites.

• Integrate ‘news’ stories into the curriculum. Asking how students customarily access news

32

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

and justify their sources allows them to interrogate and confirm the source of ‘news stories’ (e.g. family, friends or social media). This involves a teacher-led activity about how to ‘fact-check’ news or draw on multiple sources to gather information. International fact-checking websites (e.g. Snopes.com) debunks myths, fake news and shared ‘news’ stories circulating on the internet) and Australian fact-checking sites like R MIT ABC Fact Check (http://www.abc.net.au/news/ factcheck/) tests and adjudicates claims made by politicians, public figures, advocacy groups and institutions involved in public debate. Both websites are excellent sources for interrogating ‘fake news’ in examples of how many misrepresent what is false to be true.

The following example is sourced from the R MIT ABC Fact Check website ( http://www.abc. net.au/news/2017-11-15/fact-file-naplan-testing-computer-marking-essays/9113382). It investigates claims made in the article, NAPLAN robo-marking plan does not compute, which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 October 2017. On 14 November 2017, R MIT ABC Fact Check posted on its website:

Computers may well be suited to marking multiple-choice questions, but the prospect of machines marking essays, including stories, has attracted criticism, with some teachers and technology experts arguing computers cannot mark essays in the sentient way that humans can. https://business.facebook. com/ABCfactcheck/entient way that humans can.

R MIT ABC Fact Check posed two questions in producing its findings: How does a computer mark an essay? And what did ACARA’s research involve? First, it described the automated essay scoring (AES) system that uses algorithms designed to replicate human marking. ‘Based on a sample of essays already scored by a human examiner, the computer identifies these characteristics and links them with a score. The more essays the system processes, the more comprehensive its artificial intelligence becomes. Once trained, the system is ready to mark essays.’ https://business.facebook.com/ABCfactcheck/

Second, in consulting with ACAR A, R MIT ABC Fact Check accepted that ‘its research, trials and analysis show computers are just as good as humans, if not better, at marking essays’. ACAR A reported that 2018 NAPLAN essays will be assessed by both a computer and a person. The R MIT ABC Fact Check website posted: ‘This is to provide reassurance that automated marking achieves scores comparable to human markers, but faster.’ https://business.facebook.com/ABCfactcheck/

• Scaffold examples of real news, satire, and fake news for students to examine and differentiate between ‘news’ stories. As critical readers, students interrogate the tone of an online text, and identify purpose. The purpose of real news is to inform (see ‘Boeing aeroplane news story’) whereas satire and fake news seek to entertain or elicit a reaction (see ‘Father Christmas’ news story, Figure 2).

• Interrogate the role of social media in spreading fraudulent information. Social media has a propensity to act as the conduit for spreading fake news, responsible for spreading and influencing the beliefs of its readers. Young audiences are vulnerable to these websites; it is incumbent on teachers to discuss the role of social platforms in spreading false information. Middle level teachers have ‘encouraged experimentation with social media in order to help students better understand how quickly posts spread; some have opted to discuss examples of fake news and how quickly it spreads’ (Golding, 2017, para 14).

Challenges and possibilities of new literacies In the wake of the ‘fake news’ phenomenon, it seems critical for schools to teach young people how to distil, comprehend and critique information they access online. Being able to draw on resources to critique online news in one’s daily life has the capacity to empower students in making choices about what news they read and which stories they choose to share. Nevertheless, in the survey undertaken

33

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

by Notley and Dezuanni (2017b, Key Findings, para 13), they found that ‘only one in five young Australians received lessons in the past year to help them critically analyse news, and only one third had made their own news stories at school’.

Despite the aims of the Australian Curriculum to ensure successful student engagement and participation in digital and media communities in the 21st century, evidence suggests slippage between what the curriculum expects and what is happening inside and outside of classrooms. We might argue that, for tomorrow’s multiliterate students, focusing on learning how to learn new literacies and technologies will be more critical than learning a particular literacy of reading or writing (Leu et al., 2014).

Concluding thoughts Educators worldwide are tackling the phenomenon of fake news in various ways. As world agencies (e.g. OECD) make recommendations for 21st century competencies to equip young people for work and life in a global world, it is incumbent on education systems to find ways to ensure students’ ability to read, communicate, and learn with online information. Accordingly, today’s teachers will need to readjust their role, becoming agents of their students’ learning, getting acquainted with out-of- school literacies by learning from their students, and continually learning about new digital/online technologies for literacy, thus demanding from their students the development of even newer skills and strategies.

Young people live in a volatile global world requiring new literacies whose potential will be exploited as technologies change. More than ever, young people will need to develop a healthy scepticism, critical thinking skills, and online reading research and comprehension skills to become smart, active consumers of news and information. While the full impact of a post-truth world is not immediate or evident, there is a strong likelihood that, over time, young people’s capacity to engage as well-informed citizens may be jeopardised by their inability to critique notions of ‘truth’.

A PC movement in the UK called for ‘Father Christmas’ to be given the gender-neutral moniker

‘Person Christmas’.

Was this FAKE NEWS or REAL NEWS?

FAKE NEWS

This story went viral in the lead-up to Christmas, but it was just a fun yarn cooked up by UK social

news website UNILAD. There were in fact no ‘gender activists’ calling for Father Christmas to

be renamed in a more ‘gender-inclusive’ way.

A cavity as big as a Boeing aeroplane was found in the Great Pyramid of Giza this year.

Was this FAKE NEWS or REAL NEWS?

REAL NEWS

Archaeologists made the discovery in November, using imaging technology similar to X-rays.

The 30-metre chamber has not yet been accessed, and its purpose – if it even has one – remains

unclear.

Figure 2. Detecting fake news stories https://www.news.com.au/world/test-your-n ews-sense-with-our-fake-news-quiz/news-story/

e2da6dde92e0146e1241d05fbd2fadefare)

34

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACAR A) (2018a). Australian Curriculum v8.3 F-10 Curriculum: General Capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f- 10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACAR A) (2018b). Australian Curriculum v8.3 F-10 Curriculum. Critical and Creative Thinking learning continuum. Retrieved from https://www. australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/1072/general-capabilities-creative-and-critical-thinking- learning-continuum.pdf

Bennet, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775–786.

Black, R.W. (2008). Just don’t call them cartoons: The new literacy spaces of anime, manga and fanfiction. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 583–610). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Black, R.W. & Steinkuehler, C. (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 271–286). New York, NY: Guilford.

Coiro, J. & Castek, J. (2010). Assessment frameworks for teaching and learning English language arts in a digital age. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 314–321). Co-sponsored by the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English. New York: Rutledge.

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. & Leu, D.J. (Eds). (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fisher, D., Frey, N. & Gonzalez, A. (2010). Literacy 2.0: Reading and writing in 21st century classrooms. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Freebody, P. (1992). A sociocultural approach: Resourcing four rolls as a literacy learner. In A. Watson & A. Badenhop (eds) Prevention of Reading Failure. Sydney: Ashton-Scholastic, pp. 48–80.

Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990) Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL 5 (7), 7–16.

Freebody, P., Luke, A. & Gilbert, P. (1991). Reading positions and practices in the classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 21, 435–457.

Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. U.S. Reading online. Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy. South Hadley: Bergin & Garvey. Forzani, E. & Maykel, C. (2013). Evaluating Connecticut students’ ability to critically evaluate online

information. CARReader, 10, 23–37. Glance, B. (November 8, 2016). Advertising is driving social media-fuelled fake news and it is here to stay.

Retrieved 2017 from https://theconversation.com/advertising-is-driving-social-media-fuelled- fake-news-and-it-is-here-to-stay-68458

Golding, A. (August 2017). How do we equip students with the tools to determine the validity of sources? Retrieved 2018 from https://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/WhatsNew/WNDet/TabId/270/ ArtMID/888/ArticleID/848/undefined

Hagood, M.C. (2008). Intersections of popular culture, identities & new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 531–551). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Hughes, M. (September 2015). Teaching thinking skills in schools. Retrieved 2017 from https://www.

teachermagazine.com.au/articles/teaching-thinking-skills-in-schools International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), (2013). Preparing for life in a

digital age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study international report. Cham: Springer.

International Reading Association (IR A) (2009). IRA position statement on new literacies and 21st century technologies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved 2017 from https://www. literacy worldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/new-literacies-21st-centur y- position-statement.pdf?sfvrsn=ec4ea18e_6

Kang, H. & Sundar, S. Shyam (2016). When Self Is the Source: Effects of Media Customization on Message Processing, Media Psychology, 19 (4), 561–588, DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2015.1121829

35

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

Kervin, L., Mantei, J. & Leu, D.J. (2018). Repositioning online reading to a central location in the language arts. In D. Lapp &, D. Fisher, D. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 327–458). New York: Routledge.

Kiely, E. & Robertson, L. (November 18, 2016). How to Spot Fake News. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/

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, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lankshear, C., Gee, J.P., Knobel, M. & Searle, C. (1997). Changing literacies. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. New York: Open University Press.

Lawrence, S. (2013). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of literacy and use of technology in classroom practice: analysis of self-reported practice in one school district. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 51 (14). Retrieved 2018 fromhttp://www.literacyandtechnology.org/uploads/1/3/6/8/136889/jlt_v14_1_lawrence_calhoun. pdf

Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J. & Cammack, D. (2004). Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

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 & assessment. In Alvermann, D.E., Unrau, N.J. & Ruddell, R.B. (Eds.). (2013). Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed.). (pp.  1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Leu, D.J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., et al. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In L. Rush, J. Eakle & A. Berger, (Eds.). Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practices. (37–68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Leu, D.J., Zawilinski, L., Forzani, E. & Timbrell, N. (2014). Best practices in new literacies and the new literacies of online research and comprehension. In Morrow, L.M. & Gambrell, L.B. (Eds.) Best practices in literacy instruction. 5th Edition. New York: Guilford Press.

Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy. 43 (5), 448–461.

Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundation notes. Theory into Practice, 51 (4), 4–11. Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1997). The social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (eds),

Constructing Critical Literacies. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 185–225. Marchi, R. (2012). With Facebook, blogs, fake news, teens reject journalistic ‘Objectivity’. Journal of

Communication Inquiry, 36 (3), 246–262. Notley, T., Dezuanni, M., Zhong, H.F. & Howden, S., (2017a). News and Australia’s Children: How Young

People Access, Perceive and Are Affected by the News. Sydney: Crinkling News, Western Sydney University and Queensland University of Technology.

Notley, T. & Dezuanni, M. (2017b). Most young Australians can’t identify fake news online. Retrieved 2017 from https://theconversation.com/most-young-australians-cant-identify-fake-news-online-87100

O’Byrne, W.I. (2012). Facilitating Critical Evaluation Skills through Content Creation: Empowering Adolescents as Readers and Writers of Online Information. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

O’Byrne, W.I. (December 7, 2017): Making Healthy Skepticism Happen in Teaching and Learning. Retrieved 2018 from http://wiobyrne.com/healthy-skepticism/

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1996). The Knowledge-based economy. Retrieved 2017 from https://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/1913021.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011). Students on line: reading and using digital information. Paris: OECD. Retrieved fromt http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2018a). Assessing progression in creative and critical thinking skills in education. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 2018 from http://www.oecd.org/ education/ceri/assessingprogressionincreativeandcriticalthinkingskillsineducation.htm

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)(2018b). The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. Position paper. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 2018 from https://www.oecd.org/ education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf

36

Literacy Learning: the Middle Years

Volume 26

Number 3

October 2018

Peer Reviewed Paper

Serafini, F. (2012). Expanding the four resources model: reading visual and multi-modal texts. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 7 (2), pp. 150–164, DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2012.656347

Skerrett, A. & Bomer, R. (2011). Borderzones in Adolescents’ Literacy Practices: Connecting Out-of-School Literacies to the Reading Curriculum. Urban Education, 46 (6), pp.  1256–1279 DOI: 10.1177/ 0042085911398920

Street, B.V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sundar, S. Shyam (2016 December 7). Why do we fall for fake news? Retrieved 2018 from https://

theconversation.com/why-do-we-fall-for-fake-news-69829 Taguma, M. & Anger, K. (2016). The Education 2030 Conceptual Framework as a tool to build common

understanding of complex concepts. Paris: OECD. Taguma, M. & Rychen, D.S. (2016). E2030 Conceptual Learning Framework: Key competencies for 2030

(DeSeCo2.0). Paris: OECD. Directorate for Education and Skills. Wineburg, S., McGrew, S. Breakstone, J. and Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic

Online Reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. Retrieved from: http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934

Deidre Clary is Adjunct Senior Lecturer in English and literacies education at the University of New England (Australia). Her recent research includes disciplinary literacy and new literacies. She taught English in ACT secondary schools for 25 years.

Michelle Bannister-Tyrell is a Senior Lecturer at the University of New England (Australia). She specialises in gifted education. She taught for 36 years from Kindergarten through to Extension English.

Copyright of Literacy Learning: The Middle Years is the property of Australian Literacy Educators' Association 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.