RM Winter 2017 FINAL

58 / 72

Reading Matters
Technology Matters
| 58| Reading Matters | Volume 16 • Winter 2016 |
technology usage among adolescents will continue to flourish
as new technologies continue to develop (Cotton et al., 2014).
Avoidance of technology is not a viable option for literacy
teachers, and it is important that they familiarize themselves
with the technology mediums, as well as how their students
are using them (Adams, 2012; Rosen et al., 2013). Failing to
do so may perpetrate “a heightened risk of digital exclusion”
among students (Hynan, Murray, & Goldbart, 2014, p. 182).
From a literacy perspective, teachers should view media
multitasking and social media as significant elements within
a virtual “participatory culture” (Jocson & Rosa, 2015, p. 374)
where students “identities, knowledges, and interests are deeply
connected” (Omerbaišić, 2015, p. 480). Through media multitasking
and participation in social media outlets, adolescents stay engaged
with constant social interactions, which play a significant role in
shaping their own identity, as well as their need for associating
with others (Pini, Musanti, & Pargman, 2014). With this in mind,
literacy teachers must attend to the “language . . . , engagement,
learning, and social connections”within these virtual spaces
(Jocson & Rosa, 2015, p. 374) while also being sensitive to
unique cultural considerations and practices (Pini et al., 2014).
References
Adams, J. (2012). Make learning matter for the multitasking generation.Middle
School Journal, 43(3), 6-12. Retrieved from
MiddleSchoolJournal/tabid/175/Default.aspx
Amicucci, A. N. (2014). How they really talk. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
57(6), 483-491. doi:10.1002/jaal.274
Baumgartner, S. E., Weeda, W. D., van der Heijden, L. L., & Huizinga, M.
(2014). The relationship between media multitasking and executive
function in early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1120-1144.
doi:10.1177/0272431614523133
Bruce, D. L. (2015). Re-constructing and re-presenting teenagers: Using media
literacy to examine cultural constructions of adolescents. English Journal, 104(3),
68-74. Retrieved from
Buckley, M. (2014). Turning the digital corner: Re-envisioning literacy learning in
the digital era. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, 54(2), 7-15. Retrieved from
Cardoso-Leite, P., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2015). On the impact of new
technologies on multitasking. Developmental Review, 35, 98-112. doi:10.1016/j.
dr.2014.12.001
Casey, G. (2013). Social media in the classroom: A simple yet complex hybrid
environment for students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
22(1), 5-24. Retrieved from
Chandler-Olcott, K. (2013). Expanding what it means to make evidence-based
claims.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57 (4), 280-288. doi:10.1002/jaal.252
Cingel, D. P., & Krcmar, M. (2014). Understanding the experience of imaginary
audience in a social media environment: Implications for adolescent development.
Journal of Media Psychology, 26(4), 155-160. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000124
Cotten, S. R., Shank, D. B., & Anderson, W. A. (2014). Gender, technology use
and ownership, and media-based multitasking among middle school students.
Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 99-106. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.041
Courage, M. L., Bakhtiar, A., Fitzpatrick, C., Kenny, S., & Brandeau, K. (2015).
Growing up multitasking: The costs and benefits for cognitive development.
Developmental Review, 35, 5-41. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.002
Crowley, B. (2014, October). What digital literacy looks like in a classroom.
Education Week: Teacher. Retrieved from
articles/2014/10/29/ctq_crowley_digitalliteracy.html
Cyr, B., Berman, S. L., & Smith, M. (2015). The role of communication technology
in adolescent relationships and identity development.Child Youth Care Forum, 44 ,
79-92. doi: 10.1007/s10566-014-9271-0
Erikson, E. H. (1968).Identity, youth, and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Ewen, J. B., Moher, J. S., Lakshmanan, B. M., Ryan, M., Xavier, P., Crone, N. E., & ...
Mahone, E. M. (2012). Multiple task interference is greater in children with ADHD.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 37(2), 119-133. doi:10.1080/87565641.2011.63
2459
Fewkes, A. M., & McCabe, M. (2012). Facebook: Learning tool or distraction?.
Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(3), 92-98. Retrieved from
Fitton, V. A., Ahmedani, B. K., Harold, R. D., & Shifflet, E. D. (2013). The role of
technology on young adolescent development: Implications for policy, research
and practice.Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30(5), 399-413. doi:10.1007/
s10560-013-0296-2
Gunter, G., & Kenny, R. (2008). Digital booktalk: Digital media for reluctant
readers.Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 8(1), 84-99.
Retrieved from
Hynan, A., Murray, J., & Goldbart, J. (2014). ‘Happy and excited’: Perceptions of
using digital technology and social media by young people who use augmentative
and alternative communication. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(2), 175-
186. doi:10.1177/0265659013519258
International Society for Technology in Education. (2015). ISTE standards for
students. Retrieved from
standards-for-students
Jocson, K., & Rosa, J. (2015). Rethinking gaps.Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 58(5), 372-374. doi:10.1002/jaal.368
Klorer, P. G. (2009). The effects of technological overload on children: An
art therapist’s perspective. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy
Association, 26(2), 80-82. Retrieved from
EJ877034.pdf
Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Perrin, A., Stepler, R., Rainie, L., & Parker, K. (2015).
Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015. Retrieved from http://www.