Making Connections

An Analogy between Traditional and Online Text

  • Christie Bledsoe University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
  • Jodi Louise Pilgrim University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
  • Sheri Vasinda Oklahoma State University
  • Elda Martinez University of the Incarnate Word
Keywords: online text; traditional text; screen-based text; print-based text; mulitliteracies


Reading online text presents unique challenges for elementary students as they develop and extend fundamental literacy skills to various media.  In considering the teacher’s challenge to help students with online reading tasks, we compared traditional and online texts.  Many text features such as titles, headings, authors, and copyrights are easily transferable from paper to an online format; however, orientation and navigation of text differ in online environments where text offers dynamic features not possible in a traditional print resources.  In considering traditional and online texts, we present a parallel comparison to illustrate how online texts mimic their analogue counterparts and highlight ways in which they differ, offering teachers a way to make learning more concrete for their students.


American Library Association. (2016). Definition of a library: General definition. Retrieved from

Blakemore, E. (2015). The card catalog is officially dead: Long live the card catalog. Retrieved from

Blakemore, E. (2017). The Librarian of Congress weighs in on why card catalogs matter. Retrieved from

Buckler, C. (2009). What is a web browser? No one knows! Retrieved from

Butterfield, A. & Ngondi, G. (Eds.). (2016). A dictionary of computer science (7th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Clay, M. M. (2000). Concepts About Print: What have children learned about printed language? New Zealand: Heinemann.

Clay, M. (2002, 2005, 2016). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30-35. Retrieved from

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

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English/language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from

International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st century technologies: A position statement of the International Reading Association. http://www.reading.og/General/AboutIRA/PositionStatements/21stCenturyLiteracies.aspx.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). National education technology standards for students. Retrieved from

Jones-Kavalier, B. R. & Fannigan, S. I. (2008). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Teacher Librarian, 35(3), 13–16.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(6), 492-500.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Timbrell, N., & Maykel, C. (2015). Seeing the forest, not the trees: Essential technologies for literacy in the primary grade and upper-elementary grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 139-145.

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. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 1150-1180). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension. In S.B. Nueman & L.B. Gambrell (Eds), Quality Reading Instruction in the Age of Common Core Standards. (pp. 219-236). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

McLeod, J., & Vasinda, S. (2008). Critical literacy and web 2.0: Exercising and negotiating power. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 25(3-4). Retrieved from

Mills, K.A. (2016). Literacy theories for the Digital Age: Social, critical, multimodal, spatial, material and sensory lenses. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. CA: Sage Publications.

November Learning. (2018). How to read a web address. Retrieved from

Online Computer Library Center. (n.d.). Organize your materials with the world’s most widely used library classification system. Retrieved from

Perrin, A. & Duggan, M. (2015). Americans’ internet access: 2000-2015. Internet & Technology. Retrieved from

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1972). The psychology of the child (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Pilgrim, J., & Bledsoe, C. (2015). The role of technology in the transformation of twenty-first century literacy skills. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 4805-4813). New York: IGI Global.

Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., Bledsoe, C., & Martinez, E. (2018). Concepts of online text: Examining online literacy tasks of elementary students. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 57(3), 68-82.

Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L. C. Lenhart, L. A. & McKeon, C. A. (2018). Reading and learning to read (10th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Warlick, D. F. (2009). Redefining literacy 2.0. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Linworth Books.