THESIS INFORMATION.

ARTICLE. EXPLORING THE ONLINE READING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES

USED SIXTH-GRADE SKILLS READERS TO SEARCH FOR AND LOCATE THE
INFORMATION ON INTERNET.

IN-TEXT CITATIONS

1. The first perspective views reading as an active, constructive, meaning-making process

(RRSG, 2002; Spivey, 1987). According to this perspective, readers actively construct
meaning as they interact with text. (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

2. A second theoretical perspective is that of new literacies (Leu et al., 2004). The construct
new literacies mean many things to many people. Some define new literacies as social
practices (Street, 1999) or new Discourses (Gee, 2003) that emerge with new technologies.
Others see new literacies as new semiotic or cultural contexts made possible by new
technologies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kress, 2004). (Direct quote for paraphrasing)
USED

3. Consequently, our study draws from theoretical work that argues the nature of literacy is
rapidly changing as new technologies emerge (Alexander & Jetton, 2000; Lankshear &
Knobel, 2003; Reinking, 1998). (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

4. Reading in Internet contexts requires the ability to flexibly reassemble existing knowledge
with new knowledge applications customized to each new reading situation (Spiro, 2004).
(Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

5. Metacognition, in the context of reading comprehension, involves the conscious and

strategic use of evaluation and self-regulation (e.g., Paris et al., 1991). Hacker (1998) has
proposed the term self-regulated reading to highlight the importance of both self-
questioning and repair processes. USED

6. Comprehension instruction based on a cognitive view of the reading process would

emphasize teaching a set of strategies that students can use to comprehend text. USED

7. Although students have traditionally not been given direct advice about how to differentiate
important from unimportant information (Williams, 1986a), studies suggest that this
strategy can be improved through instruction. USED

8. Instruction to promote student-generated questions leads to improved text comprehension

(Brown & Palincsar, 1985; Brown, Palincsar, & Armbruster, 1984; Singer & Donlan,
1982). In the Singer and Donlan (1982) study, high school students were taught to generate
story-specific questions from a set of general questions developed from story grammars.
USED
9. Comprehension in print-based information environments is dependent upon a reader’s
interest and ability to simultaneously connect and apply one’s prior knowledge of topic and
text structure with inferential reasoning and self-regulated reading abilities, all in an effort
to locate, understand, and use information effectively. Coiro, & Dobler, (2007, P. 219).
(Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

10. While considering the difficulties that closed hypertext systems may present to readers,
many have recently argued that Internet texts present additional challenges beyond those
in hypertext systems that may affect reading comprehension in online environments (e.g.,
Coiro, 2003a; Eagleton & Dobler, 2007; Leu et al., 2004; RRSG, 2002; Spires & Estes,
2002). (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

11. Findings such as these have prompted calls for more research that explores the strategic
reading processes students employ as they navigate, use, and comprehend Internet text
(e.g., Dreher, 2002; Leu et al., 2004; Windschitl, 2000). (Direct quote for paraphrasing)
USED

12. For many years, we have known that readers rely on domain-specific information and key
vocabulary as they read printed texts (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Beck et al., 1982). We
found this also to be the case when students read on the Internet. (Direct quote for
paraphrasing) USED

13. The skilled readers in our study also drew from their prior knowledge of informational
website structures to guide their reading on the Internet. This particular knowledge
included how to recognize and negotiate hierarchical and nonlinear hyperlinks,
navigational icons, interactive multimedia, and browser toolbars (see also Bilal, 2000;
Eagleton, 2003). (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

14. The interactive and associative nature of Internet text seemed to encourage students to
regularly make, confirm, and adjust inferences using strategies and structures similar to
those skilled readers use in printed texts (e.g., see Duke & Pearson, 2002; Rumelhart,
1977). (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

15. Printed text environments (e.g., textbooks, magazines, and novels) allow readers to quickly
flip and scan through all of the available pages, getting the general gist of the text and then
using this knowledge to anticipate the comprehensibility and relevance of the information
bound within that text (e.g., van Oostendorp & Goldman, 1999). In contrast, these data
suggested that Internet reading environments (e.g., multilevel websites and search engine
interfaces) may not always provide these same affordances. (Direct quote for paraphrasing)
USED
 16. Mosenthal and Kirsch (1991), for example, proposed a model of document processing that
included goal identification, searching, locating, and verifying strategies; Brown’s (2003)
information search model included the components of searching, navigating, locating, and
extracting; Guthrie and Dreher’s (1990) cognitive model of text search included processes
such as goal formation, category selection, information extraction, integration, and
recycling. (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

17. We found that skilled readers appeared to draw upon their knowledge of the topic and
printed informational text structures (Means & Voss, 1985; Weaver & Kintsch, 1991) to
guide their reading decisions and pathways through informational websites and online
search environments. (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

18. Some time ago, Tierney and Pearson (1983) suggested that reading is essentially a
composing process. They suggested that readers composed texts through their construction
of an internal representation of meaning. Similarly, Spivey’s (1984) work with discourse
synthesis proposed that readers, who then become writers, select, organize, and connect
what they read to compose their own new external texts. (Direct quote for paraphrasing)
USED

19. (Tierney & Pearson), online readers also appeared to construct the external texts that they
read through the many choices they made about which links to follow while reading on the
Internet. (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

20. The notion that Internet text introduces additional complexities to the process of online
reading comprehension contributes to an emerging body of work that argues new
technologies are transforming the nature of reading, writing, and communicating
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Leu et al., 2004; Reinking, McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer,
1998). (Direct quote for paraphrasing) USED

REFERENCES.

1. LEU, D.J., JR., KINZER, C.K., COIRO, J., & CAMMACK, D.W. (2004). Toward a theory
of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication
technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Retrieved October 15, 2005, from www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_
index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/leu

2. STREET, B. (1999). New literacies in theory and practice. Linguistics and Education, 10,
1–24.

3. GEE, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. COPE, B., & KALANTZIS, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures. London: Routledge.

5. KRESS, G. (2004). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

6. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used
by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. doi:10.1598/rrq.42.2.2

7. RAND READING STUDY GROUP. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved July 22, 2004,
from www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/reading/readreport.html; link updated,
retrieved December 21, 2006, from www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/
2005/MR1465.pdf

8. SPIVEY, N.N. (1987). Construing constructivism: Reading research in the United States.
Poetics, 16, 169–192.

9. ALEXANDER, P.A., & JETTON, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional
and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

10. LANKSHEAR, C., & KNOBEL, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and
classroom learning. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

11. REINKING, D. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing technological transformations of

literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R.D.
Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic
world (pp. xi–xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

12. SPIRO, R.J. (2004). Principled pluralism for adaptive flexibility in teaching and learning.
In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.,
pp. 654–659). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

13. COIRO, J. (2003a). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding
of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458–
464. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from
www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/ electronic/rt/2-
03_Column/index.html

14. EAGLETON, M.B., & DOBLER, E. (2007). Reading the Web: Strategies for Internet
inquiry. New York: Guilford.

15. WINDSCHITL, M. (2000). Using the WWW for teaching and learning in K–12
classrooms: What are the interesting research questions? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3,
89–96.
16. SPIRES, R.J., & ESTES, T.H. (2002). Reading in Web-based learning environments. In
C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best
practices (pp. 115–125). New York: Guilford.

17. DREHER, M.J. (2002). Children searching and using information text: A critical part of
comprehension. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Research-based best practices (pp. 289–304). New York: Guilford.

18. ANDERSON, R.C., & PEARSON, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic
processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.

19. BECK, I.L., PERFETTI, C.A., & MCKEOWN, M.G. (1982). Effects of long-term
vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.

20. BILAL, D. (2000). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: I. Cognitive,
physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 51, 646–665.

21. EAGLETON, M.B., GUINEE, K., & LANGLAIS, K. (2003). Teaching Internet literacy
strategies: The hero inquiry project. Voices From the Middle, 10, 28–35.

22. DUKE, N.K., & PEARSON, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about
reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

23. RUMELHART, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.),
Attention and performance VI (pp. 573–603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

24. VAN OOSTENDORP, H., & GOLDMAN, S.R. (Eds.). (1999). The construction of mental
representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

25. MOSENTHAL, P.B., & KIRSCH, I.S. (1991). Toward an explanatory model of document
literacy. Discourse Processes, 14, 147–180.

26. BROWN, G.T.L. (2003, September/October). Searching informational texts: Text and task
characteristics that affect performance. Reading Online, 7(2). Retrieved March 10, 2005,
from www.readingonline/ articles/brown.html

27. GUTHRIE, J.T., & DREHER, M.J. (1990). Literacy as search: Explorations via computer.
In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high
technology (pp. 65–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 28. MEANS, M.L., & VOSS, J.F. (1985). Star Wars: A developmental study of expert and
novice knowledge structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 746–757.

29. WEAVER, C.A., III, & KINTSCH, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230–244).
White Plains, NY: Longman.

30. TIERNEY, R., & PEARSON, P.D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading.
Language Arts, 60, 568–580.

31. SPIVEY, N.N. (1984). Discourse synthesis: Constructing texts in reading and writing
(Outstanding Dissertation Monograph Series). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

32. REINKING, D., MCKENNA, M.C., LABBO, L.D., & KIEFFER, R.F. (Eds.). (1998).
Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

ARTICLE: MOVING FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW: RESEARCH ON READING

COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION.

1. Reading is a far more complex process than had been envisioned by early reading
researchers; above all, it is not a set of skills to be mastered (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, &
Wilkinson, 1984). FOR PARAPHRASING.USED

2. Cognitively based views of reading comprehension emphasize the interactive nature of

reading (Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977) and the constructive nature of comprehension
(Anderson, Reynolds, Shallert, & Goetz, 1977; Rumelhart, 1980; Spiro, 1980). FOR
PARAPHRASING. USED

3. Across all levels of age and ability, readers use their existing knowledge as a filter to
interpret and construct meaning of a given text (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). interpret and
construct meaning of a given text (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). They use this knowledge
to determine importance (Afflerbach, 1986), to draw inference (Gordon & Pearson, 1983;
Hansen, 1981; Hansen & Pearson, 1983), to elaborate text (Hansen & Pearson, 1983), and
to monitor comprehension (Dewitz, Carr, & Pat-berg, 1987). FOR PARAPHRASING. )
USED

4. (Alvermann, Smith, & Readence, 1985; Anderson & Smith, 1987; Dole & Smith, 1987,
1989; Eaton, Anderson, & Smith, 1984; Lipson, 1982, 1983; Marie & Mac-Ginitie, 1982;
Roth, 1985). Anderson (1977) noted that students are not likely to change their existing
knowledge unless they recognize and are dissatisfied with the fact that it no longer provides
an adequate account of their everyday experiences. FOR PARAPHRASING. USED
 5. The goal of instruction would be to develop a sense of conscious control, or metacognitive
awareness, over a set of strategies that they can adapt to any text they read (Pressley,
Johnson, et al., 1989). FOR PARAPHRASING. USED

6. Students who received direct instruction on determining main ideas improved their
comprehension to a greater degree than did students who received the typical skills
approach. Page 7. FOR PARAPHRASING. USED

7. One of the most common findings of recent reading research is that drawing inferences is
an essential part of the comprehension process, even among young children (Anderson &
Pearson, 1984). FOR PARAPHRASING. USED

8. Traditionally, curriculum designers, instructional theorists, and teachers have relied on a

drill-and-practice model of instruction; that is, repeatedly exposing students to tasks such
as answering comprehension questions and completing skill exercises until they have
achieved mastery (Duffy & Mclntyre, 1982; Durkin, 1978-1979). FOR
PARAPHRASING. USED

9. students conclude that comprehension involves consistently making predictions, asking

questions, summarizing, and clarifying parts of the text. Page 27. USED
FOR PARAPHRASING.

REFERENCES.

1. Anderson, R. C, Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (1984). Becoming a nation
of
2. readers. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

3. Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R.

C.

4. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of

knowledge (pp. 99-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

5. Anderson, R. C, Reynolds, R. E., Shallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for
comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367-382.

6. Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B.C.

Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

7. Spiro, R. J. (1980). Constructive processes in prose comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, B. C.

Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 245-278).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Anderson, R. C, & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-292). New York:
Longman.

9. Afflerbach, P. P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' importance

assignment processes. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy:
Learners, teachers, and researchers (Thirty-fifth Yearbook of the National Reading
Conference, pp. 30-40). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

10. Gordon, C, & Pearson, P. D. (1983). The effects of instruction in meta-comprehension and
inferencing on children's comprehension abilities. (Tech. Rep. No. 277). Urbana:
University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

11. Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children's
reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 391-417.

12. Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential
comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
75, 821-829.

13. Dewitz, P., Carr, E. M., & Patberg, J. P. (1987). Effects of inference training on
comprehension and comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 99-119.
Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and
the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,
420-436.

14. Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In Richardson-Koehler, V.

(Ed.), Educators' handbook (pp. 84-111). NY: Longman.

15. Dole, J. A., & Smith, E. L. (1987, December). When prior knowledge is wrong: Reading
and learning from science text. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading
Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.

16. Dole, J. A., & Smith, E. L. (1989). Prior knowledge and learning from science text: An
instructional study. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives
for literacy research and instruction (Thirty-eighth Yearbook of the National Reading
Conference, pp. 345-352). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

17. Eaton, J. F., Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1984). Students' misconceptions interfere
with science learning: Case studies of fifth-grade students. The Elementary School Journal,
84, 365-379.

18. Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge
and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243-261.
 19. Lipson, M. Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children's memory for text
information. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 448-457.

20. Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1982). Reading comprehension disabilities: Knowledge
structures and non-accommodating text processing strategies. Annals of Dyslexia, 32, 33-
59.

21. Roth, K. J. (1985, April). Conceptual change learning and student processing of science
texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.

22. Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. C.
Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of
knowledge pp. 415-431). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

23. Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989).
Strategies that improve children's memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary
School Journal, 90, 3-32.

24. Duffy, G. G., & Mclntyre, L. (1982). A naturalistic study of instructional assistance in
primary grade reading. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 15-23.

25. Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading

comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.

26. Dole, A. A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Pearson, P.D (1991). Moving from the old to the
new: Research on Reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research
Association, 61(2), 239-264.

ARTICLE. EFL LEARNERS’ USE OF ONLINE READING STRATEGIES AND

COMPREHENSION OF TEXTS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY.

1. Students need new comprehension strategies to read and learn from texts on the Internet
(Coiro, 2005; Sutherland-Smith, 2002). FOR PARAPHRASING. USED

2. The emergence of new technologies has redefined the nature of literacy, which has
expanded from traditional notions of reading to encompass abilities ‘‘to learn, comprehend
and interact with technology in a meaningful way” (Pianfetti, 2001, p. 256). FOR
PARAPHRASING. USED

3. Global strategies are intentional and carefully planned by learners to monitor their
reading, such as having a purpose in mind, previewing the text, checking how text content
fits its purpose, noting text characteristics like length and organization, and predicting or
guessing the text’s meaning. FOR PARAPHRASING.
 4. Problem-solving strategies are the actions that readers employ while they are working
directly with the text, especially when the text becomes difficult; these strategies include
guessing the meaning from unknown words, adjusting one’s reading rate, visualizing the
information read, resolving conflicting information, and rereading the text to improve
comprehension. FOR PARAPHRASING.

5. Support strategies are what readers use to aid comprehension, such as using a dictionary,
taking notes, highlighting textual information, or translating from one’s mother tongue to
the target language. FOR PARAPHRASING.

6. Global strategies contribute to better comprehension in Block’s (1986), Block’s (1992)

FOR PARAPHRASING.

7. On the Internet, reading involves more than readers’ interpretations of text and of the
writer’s stance in a paper-reading environment; when a third factor, Internet technology, is
involved, reading also becomes a selective process that requires special skills to scrutinize
the Internet’s abundant visual and non-textual features (Coiro, 2005; Schmar-Dobler,
2003). FOR PARAPHRASING. USED

8. To improve students’ online reading performance, teachers need to incorporate strategy

awareness training before engaging students in online tasks (Chang, 2005; Coiro, 2005;
Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Huang et al., 2006; Schmar-Dobler, 2003). FOR
PARAPHRASING. USED

9. The ultimate goal is to enable students to use strategies spontaneously (Harrison, 2004;
Singhal, 2004). FOR PARAPHRASING. USED

10. Global strategies help students to establish the purpose of reading and to monitor their
reading processes, in turn allowing them to better comprehend the text and retain
information (Harrison, 2004; Nuttall, 1996; Singhal, 2004). FOR PARAPHRASING.
USED

REFERENCES.

1. Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30–35.

2. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy web: Changes in reading from page to
screen. Reading Teacher, 55(7), 662–669.

3. Pianfetti, E. S. (2001). Teachers and technology: Digital literacy through professional

development. Language Arts, 78, 255–262.
 4. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL
Quarterly, 20(3), 463–494.

5. Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers.
TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319–343.

6. Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the internet: The link between literacy and
technology. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(1), 80–85.

7. Chang, M. M. (2005). Instructional strategy application in Web-based language teaching

and learning. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.

8. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used
by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.

9. Huang, H. C., Chern, C. L., & Lin, C. C. (2006). EFL learners’ online reading strategies:
A comparison between high and low EFL proficient readers. English Teaching and
Learning, Special Issue (1), 1–22.

10. Harrison, C. (2004). Understanding reading development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc…

11. Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Macmillan

Education.

12. Singhal, M. (2004). Teaching reading to adult second language learners. Mattoon, Illinois:

United Graphics Inc…

ARTICLE: Myths and Legends of Antioquia la Grande

Chapter 1 – definition of Myths and Legends

REFERENCE.

Chapter 3: Citations.
Reading comprehension is among the most complex human activities. To understand this
sentence, for example, one must visually process the words; identify their phonological,
orthographic, and semantic representations; and connect the words using rules of syntax to
understand the underlying meaning of the sentence (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).

The Internet has prompted new technologies that challenge students’ abilities to comprehend
informational text. The RAND Reading Study Group (RRSG, 2002) reported, “[E] electronic
texts that incorporate hyperlinks and hypermedia . . . require skills and abilities beyond those
required for the comprehension of conventional, linear print” (p. 14).

The speed with which the Internet has emerged has forced us to confront the issue of how, why,
and to what extent reading might be different as the Internet continues to transform and define
literacy in the 21st century (Hartman et al., 2010).

This perspective frames online reading comprehension as a web-based inquiry process involving
skills and strategies for locating, evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating information with
the Internet. (Coiro, 2011, page. 4)

This theory posits that the Internet is an ill-structured context for reading that requires readers to
apply what they know about reading printed text more flexibly while adapting to new and
constantly changing online reading situations (Coiro, 2011, page. 5)

Spiro suggests that online reading activities incorporate multiple representations of information
and rapidly changing contexts, thus demanding a broader knowledge of flexible comprehension
procedures and the ability to tease out and strategically respond to diverse situational cues
encountered within each new online text. (Spiro, 2009).

Similarly, studies of hypertext and Internet text comprehension indicate readers call on their
prior knowledge sources to guide their navigation (Barab, Bowdish, & Lawless, 1997; Lawless
& Kulikowich, 1996), make inferences (Burbules & Callister, 2000; Foltz, 1996), locate relevant
resources (Balcytiene, 1999; Yang, 1997), and construct meaning (Calisir & Gurel, 2003; Rouet
& Levonen, 1996). Generally, results indicate readers with high levels of topical prior knowledge
(Potelle & Rouet, 2003), broad prior knowledge (Dee-Lucas, 1999; Lawless & Kulikowich,
1996), or prior knowledge of Internet text systems (Hill & Hannafin, 1997) are better at
navigating, using, and comprehending information in hypertext environments compared to
readers with lower levels of prior knowledge (e.g., Dillon & Gabbard, 1998; MacGregor, 1999).

The finding that both offline and online reading comprehension skills made significant and
independent contributions to performance on a series of online reading tasks is consistent with
emerging evidence that offline and online reading comprehension may not be isomorphic
processes (Leu et al., 2007).
Findings suggested that successful Internet reading experiences appeared to simultaneously
require both similar and more complex applications of (1) prior knowledge sources, (2) inferential
reasoning strategies, and (3) self-regulated reading processes. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007).