Web 2.0 tools and academic literacy development in a US urban school: a case study of a second-grade English language learner

References

• Atkinson, T., and E. Swaggerty. 2011. “Empowering Fourth-grade Researchers: Reaping the Rewards of Web 2.0 Student-Centered Learning.” Language Arts 28 (1): 99–112.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. “Excerpts From Discourse in the Novel.” In The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, edited by M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M.M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beach, K. 1999. “Consequential Transitions: A Sociocultural Expedition Beyond Transfer in Education.” In Review of Research in Education, edited by A. Iran-Nejad and P.D. Pearson, Vol. 24, 101–39. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Beach, R., G. Hull, and D. O’Brein. 2011. “Transforming English Language Arts in a Web 2.0 World.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, edited by D. Lapp and D. Fisher, 3rd ed. 161–7. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bigum, C. 2002. “Design Sensibilities, Schools and the New Computing and Communication Technologies.” In Silicon Literacies: Communication, Innovation and Education in the Electronic Age, edited by I. Snyder, 130–40. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carrington, V. 2008. “The Uncanny, Digital Texts and Literacy.” Language and Education 19 (6): 467–82.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, M. 1996. Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crafton, L.K., M. Brennan, and P. Silvers. 2007. “Critical Inquiry and Multiliteracies in a First-Grade Classroom.” Language Arts 84 (6): 510–8.
   Google Scholar
• D’Amato, J. 1988. “Acting: Hawaiian Children's Resistance to Teachers. Elementary School Journal 88: 529–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, N., and Y. Lincoln. 2003. The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Derewianka, B. 1990. Exploring How Texts Work. Rozelle, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association (PETA).
   Google Scholar
• Dodge, A., N. Husain, and N. Duke. 2011. “Connected Kids? K-2 Children's Use and Understanding of the Internet.” Language Arts 89 (2): 86–98.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, A.H. 1993. Social Worlds of Children Learning to Write. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, A.H. 2003. Brothers and Sisters Learn to Write. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, A.H., and C. Genishi. 2005. On the Case: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Fetterman, D. 1998. Ethnography: Step by Step. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, L.A. 1992. “Writing to Be Read: Young Writers’ Ability to Demonstrate Audience Awareness When Evaluated by Their Readers.” Research in the Teaching of English 26: 277–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gebhard, M., R. Harman, and W. Seger. 2007. “Reclaiming Recess in Urban Schools: The Potential of Systemic Functional Linguistics for ELLs and Their Teachers.” Language Arts 84 (5): 319–430.
   Google Scholar
• Gebhard, M., D. Shin, and W. Seger. 2011. “Blogging, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and L2 Academic Literacies in an Urban Elementary School.” CALICO Journal 28 (2): 278–307.
   Google Scholar
• Gebhard, M., and J. Willett. 2008. “Supporting Teacher Learning and the Academic Literacy Development of ELLs in Changing Times.” The Journal of Staff Development 29 (1): 41–5.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, J., and E. Hayes. 2011. Language and Learning in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, P., P. Smagorinsky, and S. Valencia. 1999. “Appropriating Tools for Teaching English: A Theoretical Framework for Research on Learning to Teach.” American Journal of Education 108 (1): 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M.A. K. 1993. “Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning.” Linguistics and Education 5: 93–116.
   Google Scholar
• Hammett, R. 2009. “New Literacies and Teacher Education.” In Assessing New Literacies: Perspectives From the Classroom, edited by A. Burke and R.F. Hammett, 177–92. New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Harste, J.C. 2003. “What Do We Mean by Literacy Now?” Voices from the Middle 10 (3): 8–12.
   Google Scholar
• Kimber, K., and C. Wyatt-Smith. 2009. “Valued Knowledges and Core Capacities for Digital Learners.” In Assessing New Literacies: Perspectives From the Classroom, edited by A. Burke and R.F. Hammett, 133–56. New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Kirsch, G., and D.H. Roen. 1990. “Introduction: Theories and Research on Audience in Written Communication.” In A Sense of Audience in Written Communication, edited by G. Kirsch and D.H. Roen, 280–92. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kist, W., K. Doyle, J. Hayes, J. Horwitz, and J.T. Kuzior. 2010. “Web 2.0 in the Elementary Classroom: Portraits of Possibilities.” Language Arts 88 (1): 62–8.
   Google Scholar
• Knobel, M., and M. Lankshear, eds. 2007. A New Literacies Sampler. New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Kramsch, C. 2009. The Multilingual Subject. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kramsch, K. 2006. “From Communicative Competence to Symbolic Competence.” The Modern Language Journal 9 (2): 249–52.
   Google Scholar
• Kramsch, C., and A. Whiteside. 2008. “Language Ecology in Multilingual Settings. Towards a Theory of Symbolic Competence.” Applied Linguistics 29 (4): 645–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, W.S. E. 2009a. “Multiliteracies on Instant Messaging in Negotiating Local, Translocal, and Transnational Affliations: A Case Study of an Adolescent Immigrant.” Reading Research Quarterly 44 (4): 377–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, W.S. E. 2009b. “Multilingual Literacies in Transnational Digitally Mediated Contexts: An Exploratory Study of Immigrant Teens in the United States.” Language and Education 23 (2): 171–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, J., and J. Marsh. 2005. Making Literacy Real. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Macken-Horarik, M. 2002. “‘Something to Shoot For’: A Systemic Functional Approach to Teaching Genre in Secondary School Science.” In Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives, edited by A.M. Johns, 14–42. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• McClay, J.M., and M. Mackey. 2009. “Distributed Assessment in Our Space: This Is Not a Rubric.” In Assessing New Literacies: Perspectives From the Classroom, edited by A. Burke and R.F. Hammett, 113–32. New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• McTavish, M. 2009. “‘I Get My Facts From the Internet’: A Case Study of the Teaching and Learning of Information Literacy in In-school and Out-of-school Contexts.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9 (1): 3–28.
   Google Scholar
• Merchant, G. 2006. “Identity, Social Networks and Online Communication.” E-Learning 3 (2): 235–44.
   Google Scholar
• Meskill, C., N. Anthony, S. Hilliker-Vanstrander, C.-H. Tseng, and J. You. 2005. “CALL: A Survey of K–12 ESOL Teacher Uses and Preferences.” TESOL Quarterly 40 (2): 139–51.
   Google Scholar
• New London Group. 1996. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Features.” Harvard Educational Review 66 (1): 60–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Painter, C. 2004. “The ‘Interpersonal First’ Principle in Child Language Development.” In The Development of Language: Functional Perspectives on Evolution and Ontogenesis, edited by G. Williams and A. Lukin, 133–53. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Polman, J. 2006. “Mastery and Appropriation as Means to Understand the Interplay of History Learning and Identity Trajectories.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 15 (2): 221–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B. 1995. “Observing Sociocultural Activity on Three Planes: Participatory Appropriation, Guided Participation, and Apprenticeship.” In Sociocultural Studies of the Mind, edited by J.V. Wertsch, P. Del Rioand, and A. Alvarez, 139–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, D.L., and J. O’Looney. 1990. “Facilitation of Audience Awareness: Revision Processes of Basic Writers.” In A Sense of Audience in Written Communication, edited by G. Kirsch and D.H. Roen, 280–92. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ryder, P.M., E.U. Vander Lei, and D.H. Roen. 1999. “Audience Considerations for Evaluating Writing.” In Evaluating Writing, edited by C.R. Cooper and L. Odell, 99–113. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
   Google Scholar
• Schleppegrell, M. 2004. The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistic Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Shin, D., M. Gebhard, and W. Seger. 2010. “Weblogs and English Language Learners’ Academic Literacy Development: Expanding Audiences, Expanding Linguistic Repertoires.” In Authenticity in the Classroom and Beyond, edited by S. Rilling and M. Dantas-Whitney, 99–111. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
   Google Scholar
• Siegel, M., S. Kontovourki, S. Schmier, and G. Enriquez. 2008. “Literacy in Motion: A Case Study of a Shape-shifting Kindergartener.” Language Arts 86 (2): 89–98.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, I., and M. Prinsloo. 2008. “Young People's Engagement with Digital Literacies in Marginal Contexts in a Globalised World.” Language and Education 21 (3): 171–9.
   Google Scholar
• Sykes, J., A. Oskoz, and S.L. Thorne. 2008. “Web 2.0, Synthetic Immersive Environments, and the Future of Language Education.” CALICO Journal 25 (3): 528–46.
   Google Scholar
• Vasudevan, L. 2010. “Literacies in a Participatory, Multimodal World: The Arts and Aesthetics of Web 2.0.” Language Arts 88 (1): 43–50.
   Google Scholar
• Volosinov, V.N. 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated and edited by Ladislav Matejka and I.R. Titunik. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warschauer, M., and D. Grimes. 2007. “Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27: 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J.V. 1998. Mind as Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willet, J., and C. Rosenberger. 2005. “Critical Dialogue: Transforming the Discourses of Educational Reform.” In Learning, Teaching and Community: Contributions of Situated and Participatory Approaches to Educational Innovation, edited by L. Pease-Alvarez and S. Schecter, 191–213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Willett, J., R. Harman, M.E. Lozano, A. Hogan, and J. Rubeck. 2007. “Transforming Standard Practices to Serve the Social and Academic Learning of English Language Learners.” In Inclusive Pedagogy for English Language Learners: A Handbook of Research-informed Practices, edited by L. Verplaetse and N. Migliacci. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, G. 2008. “Language Socialization: A Systemic Functional Perspective.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Vol. 8, Language Socialization, edited by P. Duff and N. Hornberger, 2nd ed. 57–70. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wollman-Bonilla, J.E. 2001. “Can First-grade Writers Demonstrate Audience Awareness? Reading Research Quarterly 36 (2): 184–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi, Y. 2009. “Adolescent Literacy and Identity Construction Among 1.5 Generation Students: From a Transnational Perspective.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 19 (1): 100–29.
   Google Scholar