QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
  are needed to see this picture.
                                                                                                         QuickTimeª and a
                                                                     QuickTimeª and a            TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                                            TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                                               are needed to see this picture.      are needed to see this picture.




                                    A beginning understanding of the
                                    interplay between offline and online
                                    reading comprehension when
                                    adolescents read on the Internet

                                    Julie Coiro, University of Rhode Island jcoiro@snet.net
                                    University of Wisconsin Reading Research Symposium
                                    (June 27, 2009)
Where are we headed?
                                                           QuickTimeª and a
                                                   TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                                      are needed to see this picture.




Introduction to the current situation
Theoretical Frameworks
Summarizing the increasing complexities that appear to
characterize online reading comprehension
Quantitative measures, procedures, and findings
Qualitative measures, procedures, and findings
What do these findings mean for literacy theory, research,
and classroom practice?
Time for discussion
Beginning the conversation -
      Activating your own ideas

Think-Pair-Share:
Think about your own experiences reading on the
Internet…how do they compare to reading
printed materials? Share with a partner…
●
    What appears to be the same?
●
    What appears to be different?
●
    What appears to be easier?
●
    What appears to be harder?
The current situation                                                QuickTimeª and a
                                                                  TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                                                     are needed to see this picture.




We do little to help struggling adolescent readers and
their teachers (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Partnership for Reading, 2003;
RAND Reading Study Group [RRSG], 2002).

As a result, there is a large and increasing gap in
adolescents’ reading achievement (NCES, 2001; 2002; 2003).
At the same time, Internet technologies have increasingly
become a part of our daily lives (e.g., Rainee & Hilton, 2005;
Friedman, 2005), introducing additional challenges to
reading (Coiro, 2003; Coiro & Dobler, 2007; NICHD, 2000; RRSG, 2002).
The current situation                                   QuickTimeª and a
                                                   TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                                     are needed to see this picture.




Unfortunately, we know little about…
  which skills/strategies/practices contribute the most to
  successful online reading comprehension;
  which students demonstrate these skills and which do not;
  how to characterize, measure, teach, and chart progress
  of these skills/strategies/practices in the classroom.

Unbelievably, we are doing little to learn more….
  No states include the reading comprehension demands of
  the Internet in their standards or in state reading
  assessments (Leu, Ataya, & Coiro, 2002).
What’s the big deal?                                        QuickTimeª and a
                                                        TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                                          are needed to see this picture.




Researchers urged to move beyond group comparison studies
to focus more closely on the attributes of skilled and less-
skilled online readers (Abrami & Bernard, 2006; Dillon & Greene,
2003).

It is crucial that we learn more about the nature of online
reading comprehension or risk even larger gaps in reading
achievement and increasing numbers of readers who struggle
in the networked information contexts that will dominate their
future (e.g., ETS, 2003; IRA, 2001; Leu, 2007).
Purpose of the study                              QuickTimeª and a
                                             TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                               are needed to see this picture.




This sequential mixed-methods study sought to:

  Investigate the extent to which new online reading
  skills & strategies may be required to comprehend
  information on the Internet;

  Explore the nature of online reading comprehension
  among three adolescent readers who read online at
  different levels of proficiency.
Theoretical Frameworks                                               QuickTimeª and a
                                                               TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                                                 are needed to see this picture.




Reading comprehension is an active, constructive process
of making meaning (Pearson et al., 1992; Pressley et al., 1989; RRSG,
2002).

New literacies perspective of online reading
comprehension (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Leu, Kinzer,
Coiro, and Cammack, 2004; Leu et al, 2009)

Adapting diachronic perspectives of literacy practices
(Gutierrez & Stone, 2000)

Cognitive flexibility in use of strategies and context clues
that inform meaning making (Spiro, 2004)
Developmental theory of reading (Alexander, 1997; 2003; 2005)
Developmental Perspectives

Alexander (2006) argued, “profiles of successful and
struggling readers are reflective of developmental
forces” (p. 413).

  Stages of acclimation, competency, and proficiency
  may characterize readers over a lifetime
  Might these levels be useful for distinguishing strategy
  use among lower, average, and higher performing
  online readers over the course of a reading task as they
  read for information on the Internet?
Increasing Complexities of Text Structure
      Impacts Reading Comprehension

Offline Narrative Text
Comprehension
Offline Information Text
Comprehension
Hypertext Comprehension

Internet Text Comprehension (Online Reading Comprehension)
Offline Text Structures And
   Reading Comprehension
A range of active, strategic processes are required to
comprehend narrative text
    • (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Paris et al., 1991; Pressley & Afflerbach,
      1995)

Information texts pose additional challenges with
complex concepts, specialized vocabulary, and
unfamiliar text structures
    • (Guthrie & Mosenthal, 1987; Kintsch, 1990; Meyer, Brant, &
      Bluth, 1980)

Reader characteristics play a central role in reading
comprehension (RRSG, 2002; Guthrie; Alexander).
Key Reader Characteristics

Reading comprehension ability

  Skilled readers apply a range of cognitive
  strategies such as determining key ideas,
  critically analyzing information, making
  inferences, etc.
  (Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992; RRSG, 2002).
  Strategy use depends on the readers’ purposes
  and the types of texts they read
  (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, 2000)
Key Reader Characteristics

Prior knowledge

 • The knowledge a reader brings to any text or
   learning situation (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1984)
 • Skilled readers draw on general, topic-, and
   text-specific knowledge to make predictions,
   reason strategically, and remember main ideas
  (e.g., Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, 1991; Alexander,
  Shallert, & Hare, 1991).
Key Reader Characteristics

Dispositions

 • Habits of mind; tendencies to approach and/or
   respond to situations in certain ways (see Katz,
  1988; Carr & Claxton, 2002)


 • Distinct aspects of reading dispositions
   including beliefs, goals, values, purposes, and
   needs can influence comprehension
    – (e.g., Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997;
      Horner & Shewry, 2002; RRSG, 2002)
Added Complexities of
Informational Hypertext Structures
Hypertexts (closed systems) present multiple, non-linear
pathways (Landow, 1994)
Hypertexts extend the range of possible interconnections
and pathways between texts (often, some paths are better
than others) (Bolter, 1991; Burbules & Callister, 2000; Reinking,
1997)
Content hidden beneath multiple layers and connected by
links with fewer surrounding context cues (requiring
high levels of inferencing) (Foltz, 1996; Spyrakis, 2000)
Author’s intertextual connections may be different than
the reader’s connections, creating more complexity
(Caney, 1999)
Reader Characteristics and
   Hypertext Comprehension
Hypertexts…“require skills and abilities beyond those
required for comprehension of conventional, linear
print” (RRSG, 2002)…but we know little about them
  Prior knowledge influences navigational patterns and
  comprehension recall
   • e.g., Lawless & Kulikowich (1998); Lawless, Mills, & Brown,
     (2003); Yang (1997)

  Affective dispositions differ between more and less
  successful hypertext readers
   • e.g., Balcytiene (1999); Yang (1997)
Added Complexities of
 Internet (Online) Text Structures
Online texts are not bound within a closed system
with only one organizational structure (Lawless &
Schrader, 2007)
Online texts change daily in structure, form, and
content (Zakon, 2005)
Online texts often contain hidden social,
economic, and political agendas not typically
found in closed hypertext learning systems (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000; Fabos, 2008)
Online texts introduce infinite intertextual
connections and intercultural negotiations (Snyder &
Bulfin, 2008; Warshauer & Ware, 2008)
Online Text Comprehension

Hill & Hannafin (1997) found metacognitive strategies,
prior knowledge, and perceived self-efficacy influenced
how adults learned from Internet text
Studies suggest many adolescents are ill-equipped to
deal with new online reading comprehension demands:
   Querying search engines
    • e.g., Eagleton & Guinee (2002); Sutherland-Smith (2002)
   Understanding search results
    • e.g., Coiro & Dobler (2004); Henry (2006); Leu et al. (2004)
   Critically evaluating online information
    • e.g., Burbules & Callister (2000); Fabos (2004)
Online Text Comprehension

Three studies have directly explored Internet use as a complex,
multifaceted process of reading comprehension

   Coiro & Dobler (2007) found skilled readers employed both
   similar and more complex applications of (1) prior
   knowledge; (2) inferential reasoning strategies; and (3) self-
   regulated reading processes.

   Coiro & Dobler (2004) found traditionally skilled readers
   with Internet reading experience were aware of and
   demonstrated strategic reading processes to a higher degree
   than their less-skilled peers.
Online Text Comprehension

The New Literacies Research Team (2005) used this
knowledge to design strategy interventions with seventh
grade students and measure growth in online reading and
science learning.

   Found higher achievement levels in online reading
   comprehension and conceptual science knowledge
   Developed a preliminary, psychometrically sound
   measure of online reading comprehension (ORCA-Blog)
   Performance in online reading skills (ORCA-Blog) did
   not correlate with traditional reading skills (DRP),
   suggesting that the two instruments measured
   complementary, but orthogonal skill sets.
Initial Evidence of something
       “new”
                                               (r=0.19, n = 89, N.S.)


                                                  Offline Reading =
                                                  CT State
                                                  Reading Test

                                                  Online Reading
                                                  Comprehension=
                                                  ORCA Blog



Leu, D. Castek, J., Hartman, D., Coiro, J.,
Henry, L., Kulikowich, J., Lyver, S. (2005).
Online Text Comprehension -
  Is it new? old? different? how?

Some research suggests the skills sets are similar,
but more complex (e.g., Coiro & Dobler, 2007).
Other research suggests the skill sets are
complementary but orthogonal (e.g., NLRT,
2005).
The current study builds on these findings to
investigate the extent to which new (and old)
comprehension proficiencies may be required on
the Internet.
Key Research Questions

RQ1: In a regression analysis, does performance
on one measure of online reading comprehension
significantly predict performance on a second,
parallel measure of online reading comprehension
over and above (a) offline reading comprehension
and (b) prior knowledge?

RQ2: What specific patterns of skill and strategy
use appear to distinguish three students of varying
levels of online reading comprehension as they
engaged in a series of online information requests
about science content?
Quantitative Sample

510 7th graders from a convenience sample
sorted by strata into two groups (economically
advantaged and economically challenged)
  60 students randomly selected from each strata

Final sample included 118 ethnically,
economically, and academically diverse seventh
graders
Diverse Quantitative Sample
Quantitative Measures of
Reader Characteristics

Offline reading comprehension
Prior knowledge
Online reading comprehension
Measuring offline reading
comprehension
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT)
  Standardized reading scores (r = .85)
  50 percent:
   • Forming an initial understanding
   • Developing an interpretation
   • Demonstrating a critical stance
  50 percent:
   • The Degrees of Reading Power (DRP)
Measuring offline reading
comprehension
Measuring Prior Knowledge
Conceptual measure with six items scored with a three
point rubric (r = .849)

What do you know about…
 the lungs
 the breathing process
 oxygen                             Topic-Specific
 carbon monoxide poisoning
 animation
 reliable information     Task-Specific


   Range 3.5 - 34 Mean = 14.93 (SD = 7.12)
Measuring Online Reading
    Comprehension

Online Reading Comprehension Assessment
(ORCA-Scenarios I and II)

Three integrated tasks in a “Treasure Hunt” that asked
students to locate, evaluate, synthesize, and
communicate information using the Internet

Twenty open-ended items; each scored using a 4-point rubric
(0-3 points) for a maximum score of 60 points

ORCA Scenario I (r = .918) and Scenario II (r = .909)
ORCA-Scenario 1
ORCA-Scenario 2
Quantitative Procedures

118 students completed measure of prior
knowledge and ORCA-Scenario I (recorded with
Camtasia)
Standardized reading scores were collected from
each district
16 weeks later, completed same measure of prior
knowledge and ORCA-Scenario II (recorded with
Camtasia)
  This 2nd PK measure was used in regression model
QuickTimeª and a
         TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
            are needed to see this picture.




Any questions so far?
Comments?

                           QuickTimeª and a
                   TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                     are needed to see this picture.
Findings: Predicting Online
        Reading Comprehension
  Regression Analysis        N = 118

         R2           Additional R2       Additional R2
  Offline Reading    Prior Knowledge     Online Reading         Total R2
  Comprehension                          Comprehension
       .351*               .074               .154*              .579*


     35.1%                7.4%               15.4%              57.9%


Offline Reading Comprehension = CT State Reading Test

Online Reading Comprehension = ORCA Scenario I and II (in Quia interface)

                                  Effect Size .33 - large effect Cohen (1988)
Something different, new, unique?

Something predicts online reading
comprehension over and above offline
reading comprehension & prior knowledge
Multiple possibilities (combinations) of
offline and online reading comprehension
Alternative explanation: Process-based
strategy use vs. product-based skills (but
it’s still reading comprehension)
Findings: Predicting Online
   Reading Comprehension
Tested for Interaction Effects

  There was a significant negative interaction effect between
  prior knowledge and online reading comprehension
  (ORCA-Scenario I), t(105) = -2.28, p < .05.

  When entered into the whole regression model as a fourth
  predictor variable, this interaction effect explained a small but
  additional 1.9 percent of variance in the model, which was
  significant FD(1,104) = 4.782, p < .05
Findings - Main Effects of
     Prior Knowledge
Among readers         Effect of prior         Result
with…                 knowledge

HIGH online reading   PK had no significant   t(106)=.079
comprehension         effect on ORCA2         p > .05
                      performance
AVERAGE               PK had no significant   t(106)=1.965
online reading        effect on ORCA2         p > .05
comprehension         performance
LOW online reading    PK had a positive &     t(106)=2.898
comprehension         significant effect on   p < .01**
                      ORCA2 performance
A changing role for prior
    knowledge?

PK had a positive and significant effect only among
students with low online reading ability; for those with
average or high online reading ability, PK had no
significant effect on online reading performance

This suggests…higher levels of online reading ability
may help compensate for lower levels of topic-specific
prior knowledge when adolescents complete online
reading-for-information tasks.
Similar findings about prior
      knowledge in rapid locating tasks
 "Indeed, the participants in the present study were able to
 access relevant authoritative sites fairly accurately, even when
 their domain knowledge was low. Some structural supports
 provided by search engines then, may provide a support for
 less experienced Internet users and individuals with low
 domain knowledge” (p. 647).
 “Perhaps domain knowledge has a more subtle, subjective
 impact on search behaviors that may require more extensive
 examination.”


Willoughby, Anderson, Wood, Mueller, & Ross (2009). Fast searching for
information on the Internet for use in a learning context: The impact of domain
knowledge. Computers & Education, 52, 640-648.
The nature of the prior
knowledge variable




  Consider the role of
Topic + Task Knowledge
Part II

So what more can we learn from a richer
qualitative look at the patterns of strategy
use among three diverse online readers?

How might these patterns begin to help us
better understand the “stories behind the
numbers”?
Qualitative Sample

Three focal students selected based on a
combination of their online and offline reading
performance (after Time 1)

  A higher performing online reader and higher
  performing offline reader [Nicole]
  A lower performing online reader and lower
  performing offline reader [Christian]
  A higher performing online reader but lower
  performing offline reader [Mikaela]
Qualitative Procedures

Directly after ORCA 2, conducted retrospective
think-aloud interviews with three focal students
  Internet use at home & school
  Their personal response to the task
  General reading habits offline and online
  Elaborate on strategy use while video recording played back

Semi-structured follow-up interviews with each
student’s reading/language arts teacher and computer
teacher
  Teacher’s perceptions and curriculum components
Qualitative Data Analysis

Iterative stages of a diachronic,
developmental, contrastive, case study design
  Case study of three different readers
  Diachronic analysis to identify phases of online
  reading behaviors along a chronological timeline
  Contrastive case analysis of strategy use
  Pinpoint developmental aspects of online reading
  comprehension along a continuum within six
  phases of online reading
Six phases of online reading
    (Reading for Information in ORCA-Scenarios I and II)

Phase 1. Understanding the task directions
Phase 2. Selecting and revising search terms
Phase 3. Reading to evaluate the relevancy of
         hyperlinks in search engines and websites
Phase 4. Reading to critically evaluate accuracy,
         reliability, and commercial bias within and
         across websites
Phase 5. Synthesizing information across three websites
         to make a best choice
Phase 6. Communicating answers to online information
         requests
EMERGING         ACTION
PATTERNS                            THINK-ALOUD




 Analyzing patterns within subphases of online reading
Qualitative Analysis:
          Developmental Trends???
            Lower performing Average performing   Higher performing
              online reader     online reader       online reader

                    2               3                     1
  Task directions
   Search terms




                                         ?
Evaluate relevancy
 Evaluate accuracy,
reliability and stance
     Synthesize
   Communicate
Qualitative Finding #1
 Finding #1
    A developmental progression of reading
 comprehension skills and strategies distinguished the
    three readers’ performance within each phase

Phase 1: Understanding the task directions [monitoring understanding]

        Lower-performing         Average-performing          Higher-performing
          online reader             online reader              online reader

      He was not sure what       She explained she was      She was questioning
      to pay attention to - he   reading it slowly to       the task and
      was confused so he         make sure it made          monitoring her
      just kept reading. He      sense. She was             understanding of the
      acknowledged this          reading all the            topic and the
      difficulty in the          questions and writing      vocabulary. She
      interview, but had a       them down to help          mentioned the 2nd
      limited repertoire of      remember. She was          task was more
      strategies to address      aware of her difficulty,   challenging and wasn’t
      his confusion about        and used a                 quite sure which detail
      where to start.            compensatory strategy      to focus on first.
                                 (write down clues).
At each phase, developmental differences
      appeared to characterize three students with
       different overall levels of online reading
                      proficiency
                     Lower                 Average                  Higher
Locating          .com strategy          Whole phrase           Uses keywords
Evaluating      Struggled to locate    Judged reliability
Reliability      “About Author”        based on length of
                                                              Examined author’s level
                       page                coverage            of integrity/expertise
Evaluating       Ran out of time         Detected related      Detected related
Commercial       and did not have     advertising but over-     advertising and
Bias              opportunity to       generalized caution    expressed balanced
                   demonstrate             (believed all        caution (may be
                   strategy use       information was fake)   exxagerated/slanted)
Communicating    Copied the long                              Copy/pasted address
                 address by hand                              with mouse shortcut
Understanding Task Directions
       (Developmental Differences)
High   (50 seconds) “I was reading the clues and I was like, Oh,
       United Kingdom! I like the United Kingdom! But then I got to
       the asthma part and I was like, “what does asthmas have to
       do with carbon monoxide poisoning, and then I saw it. And
       then the animation part - I love having animation!”
Avg.   (3 min. 30 sec) “I read the clues and I read the questions, and
       then up here [pointing to the link to the MSN homepage], it
       goes to the link. I read the question and I wrote down (on the
       paper next to her) what the questions are, so I don’t have to
       click back and forth later on to see if I got the right thing.”
Low    (3 min 26 sec) “Well, my plan is to like, to check it out, what to
       do, which one to look at, and where to look at it…I was
       thinking that I wouldn’t be able to find it - that it was going to
       be hard”.
LOCATING [Nicole: Task 2]
      Higher Performing Online Reader
0:00-0:20                       0:20-0:30


                                                     0:30-0:47




     1:11. The address is http://www.njpies.org/co
LOCATING [Christian: Task 2]
      Lower Performing Online Reader
0:00-4:15
                                                  4:15-5:30




                                                     6:15-8:20



            10:00-10:45 “In questions 1-4, I just can’t find it.”
Critically Evaluating
  Reliability
  (Developmental Differences)
MOST RELIABLE: [Nicole - higher performing]
This site is most reliable because it gives a lot of
information. It is also done by a college institute.

MOST RELIABLE: [Mikaela - average performing]
This site is most reliable because the site is all about the
facts on carbon monoxide poisoning and because you
learn more about carbon monoxide poisoning.

MOST RELIABLE: [Christian - lower performing]
[ran out of time looking for author’ s name] I was all
shocked ‘ cuz I was like kinda lost, cause it’ s kinda
hard
Critically Evaluating
   Reliability (Developmental Differences)
LEAST RELIABLE: [Nicole - higher performing]
This site looks like they’ re trying to sell me stuff - I didn’ t think it
was the least reliable, but I didn’ t think it was the most reliable - it
was in the middle. Cause if they try to sell you something, that
doesn’ t always mean it’ s not reliable. It means that it gives you a
slight thought that it might not be reliable, but it might just be trying
to help you, like picture carbon monoxide detectors now and think
the life lost may be yours next time.

LEAST RELIABLE: [Mikaela - average performing]
This site is the least reliable because 1) the site has the least facts
and 2) because the site is the least accurate for people to learn
anything because there’ s only 2 1/2 paragraphs.

LEAST RELIABLE: [Christian - lower performing]
This site said “ For Immediate Release” - I think they just want to
put that out really quick - it means they really don’ t want to help,
they just put information out fast.
Qualitative Finding #2
Developmental differences appeared to be affected by five
  key dimensions of offline and online reading
  comprehension ability including:
      (1) fluency;
      (2) self-regulated reading;
                                             See Figure 1 in
      (3) inferential reasoning;
                                           Handout for Details
      (4) critical reasoning; and
      (5) metacognitive knowledge about what, how, and when to
      employ particular online reading processes

Remember: Strategic knowledge = declarative, procedural, and conditional



              Offline         PK         Online     Total R2
             35.1%         7.4%         15.4%        57.9%
The Interplay Between Offline and
           Online Reading Ability
1. Understanding task directions       Primarily offline

2. Selecting & revising search terms                   Primarily online
3. Evaluating relevancy of             Primarily offline with new online
   hyperlinks                          procedures and contexts
4. Evaluating accuracy, reliability    Primarily offline with new online
   and commercial bias                 procedures and contexts
5. Synthesizing                        Primarily offline with new online
                                       procedures and contexts
6. Communicating                       Combine offline and new online
 Offline     PK    Online Total R2
                                                35.1% plus       15.4%
 35.1%      7.4%    15.4     57.9%
Qualitative Finding #3


Online reading comprehension might be conceived as
 overlapping and highly integrated dimensions of
 strategic offline and online reading processes rather
 than a linear sequence of isolated reading skills.

Thus, online reading comprehension instruction should
  weave offline and online reading strategy practice
  within authentic tasks that integrate online locating,
  evaluating, synthesis, and communication.
Implications for Literacy Theory

Preliminary evidence of the psychological reality of
new literacies required to comprehend information on
the Internet (Leu et al, 2004).

Further informs long-debated theoretical questions
about reading comprehension by providing preliminary
evidence that online reading comprehension may best
be characterized as both:
  a highly integrated set of strategic reading processes
  (see Thorndike, 1974)
  that can be organized into sets of different sub-skills
  (see Davis, 1972) related to six phases of online reading
Implications for Literacy Research
Findings contribute to emerging work that seeks to identify the
range of skills and strategies that effectively characterize
online reading comprehension (TICA Project, 2005-2007).

Findings help us begin to more precisely understand the
possible similarities and complexities / differences between
offline and online reading comprehension processes revealed in
previous work (e.g., Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Leu et al, 2005).

Findings extend work identifying qualitative shifts in strategic
offline processing that distinguish novices from experts (e.g.,
Alexander et al.) to offer preliminary patterns of qualitative shifts
in online comprehension strategy use that appeared to
distinguish higher-performing online readers from lower-
performing online readers.
Implications for Classroom Practice

Inform diagnosis and remediation within each
phase of online reading comprehension
  We can no longer assume that one reader will do equally
  well or be equally challenged across all dimensions of an
  online reading task (or that how you read offline predicts
  entirely how you read online)

  Preliminary set of criteria for determining individual
  strengths and weaknesses can inform realistic next steps for
  remediation within and across the phases of online reading
  comprehension
Implications for Classroom Practice

Inform instruction of online reading comprehension

  Design leveled (Mosenthal, 1996) and explicit
  instruction in:
    • Locating & communicating skills to enable access to
      online texts
    • Critical evaluation skills for all levels of readers to
      facilitate deeper questioning of texts and sources
    • Synthesis strategies that consider the overlaps
      between evaluation, synthesis, and communication
      skills
We need to be cautious in our
    interpretations…
Tasks did not represent the full extent of online literacy
experiences or new literacy components
   Focused on externally assigned questions as opposed to
   self-selected topics of inquiry
   Narrow view of evaluation, synthesis, and communication
   Scoring system reflected the task demands

Can’t really generalize from three case studies that in some
ways were more similar than different (but findings can
inform a replication study with larger N)
Significance of the Study
Having the skills to comprehend information on the Internet
will play a central role in academic success in an information
age.

A better understanding of the nature of the new skills &
strategies of online reading comprehension can:
   Inform an emerging theory of new literacies
   Provide rich insights into online reading profiles
   Inform the development of diagnostic instruments and
   better instructional strategies, particularly for those students
   who struggle the most with online reading

Pursuing the ideas that emerged may prompt new focus for
addressing several of the literacy challenges we face today.
QuickTimeª and a                    QuickTimeª and a
               TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor    TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                                     are needed to see this picture.
                 are needed to see this picture.




Thank you.
Questions? Concerns? Ideas?

Julie Coiro
University of Rhode Island
http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/coirodissertation/

A Beginning Understanding of the Interplay Between Offline and Online Reading Comprehension

  • 1.
    QuickTimeª and a TIFF(Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. QuickTimeª and a QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. are needed to see this picture. A beginning understanding of the interplay between offline and online reading comprehension when adolescents read on the Internet Julie Coiro, University of Rhode Island [email protected] University of Wisconsin Reading Research Symposium (June 27, 2009)
  • 2.
    Where are weheaded? QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Introduction to the current situation Theoretical Frameworks Summarizing the increasing complexities that appear to characterize online reading comprehension Quantitative measures, procedures, and findings Qualitative measures, procedures, and findings What do these findings mean for literacy theory, research, and classroom practice? Time for discussion
  • 3.
    Beginning the conversation- Activating your own ideas Think-Pair-Share: Think about your own experiences reading on the Internet…how do they compare to reading printed materials? Share with a partner… ● What appears to be the same? ● What appears to be different? ● What appears to be easier? ● What appears to be harder?
  • 4.
    The current situation QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. We do little to help struggling adolescent readers and their teachers (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Partnership for Reading, 2003; RAND Reading Study Group [RRSG], 2002). As a result, there is a large and increasing gap in adolescents’ reading achievement (NCES, 2001; 2002; 2003). At the same time, Internet technologies have increasingly become a part of our daily lives (e.g., Rainee & Hilton, 2005; Friedman, 2005), introducing additional challenges to reading (Coiro, 2003; Coiro & Dobler, 2007; NICHD, 2000; RRSG, 2002).
  • 5.
    The current situation QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Unfortunately, we know little about… which skills/strategies/practices contribute the most to successful online reading comprehension; which students demonstrate these skills and which do not; how to characterize, measure, teach, and chart progress of these skills/strategies/practices in the classroom. Unbelievably, we are doing little to learn more…. No states include the reading comprehension demands of the Internet in their standards or in state reading assessments (Leu, Ataya, & Coiro, 2002).
  • 6.
    What’s the bigdeal? QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Researchers urged to move beyond group comparison studies to focus more closely on the attributes of skilled and less- skilled online readers (Abrami & Bernard, 2006; Dillon & Greene, 2003). It is crucial that we learn more about the nature of online reading comprehension or risk even larger gaps in reading achievement and increasing numbers of readers who struggle in the networked information contexts that will dominate their future (e.g., ETS, 2003; IRA, 2001; Leu, 2007).
  • 7.
    Purpose of thestudy QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. This sequential mixed-methods study sought to: Investigate the extent to which new online reading skills & strategies may be required to comprehend information on the Internet; Explore the nature of online reading comprehension among three adolescent readers who read online at different levels of proficiency.
  • 8.
    Theoretical Frameworks QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Reading comprehension is an active, constructive process of making meaning (Pearson et al., 1992; Pressley et al., 1989; RRSG, 2002). New literacies perspective of online reading comprehension (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack, 2004; Leu et al, 2009) Adapting diachronic perspectives of literacy practices (Gutierrez & Stone, 2000) Cognitive flexibility in use of strategies and context clues that inform meaning making (Spiro, 2004) Developmental theory of reading (Alexander, 1997; 2003; 2005)
  • 9.
    Developmental Perspectives Alexander (2006)argued, “profiles of successful and struggling readers are reflective of developmental forces” (p. 413). Stages of acclimation, competency, and proficiency may characterize readers over a lifetime Might these levels be useful for distinguishing strategy use among lower, average, and higher performing online readers over the course of a reading task as they read for information on the Internet?
  • 10.
    Increasing Complexities ofText Structure Impacts Reading Comprehension Offline Narrative Text Comprehension Offline Information Text Comprehension Hypertext Comprehension Internet Text Comprehension (Online Reading Comprehension)
  • 11.
    Offline Text StructuresAnd Reading Comprehension A range of active, strategic processes are required to comprehend narrative text • (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Paris et al., 1991; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995) Information texts pose additional challenges with complex concepts, specialized vocabulary, and unfamiliar text structures • (Guthrie & Mosenthal, 1987; Kintsch, 1990; Meyer, Brant, & Bluth, 1980) Reader characteristics play a central role in reading comprehension (RRSG, 2002; Guthrie; Alexander).
  • 12.
    Key Reader Characteristics Readingcomprehension ability Skilled readers apply a range of cognitive strategies such as determining key ideas, critically analyzing information, making inferences, etc. (Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992; RRSG, 2002). Strategy use depends on the readers’ purposes and the types of texts they read (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, 2000)
  • 13.
    Key Reader Characteristics Priorknowledge • The knowledge a reader brings to any text or learning situation (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1984) • Skilled readers draw on general, topic-, and text-specific knowledge to make predictions, reason strategically, and remember main ideas (e.g., Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, 1991; Alexander, Shallert, & Hare, 1991).
  • 14.
    Key Reader Characteristics Dispositions • Habits of mind; tendencies to approach and/or respond to situations in certain ways (see Katz, 1988; Carr & Claxton, 2002) • Distinct aspects of reading dispositions including beliefs, goals, values, purposes, and needs can influence comprehension – (e.g., Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997; Horner & Shewry, 2002; RRSG, 2002)
  • 15.
    Added Complexities of InformationalHypertext Structures Hypertexts (closed systems) present multiple, non-linear pathways (Landow, 1994) Hypertexts extend the range of possible interconnections and pathways between texts (often, some paths are better than others) (Bolter, 1991; Burbules & Callister, 2000; Reinking, 1997) Content hidden beneath multiple layers and connected by links with fewer surrounding context cues (requiring high levels of inferencing) (Foltz, 1996; Spyrakis, 2000) Author’s intertextual connections may be different than the reader’s connections, creating more complexity (Caney, 1999)
  • 16.
    Reader Characteristics and Hypertext Comprehension Hypertexts…“require skills and abilities beyond those required for comprehension of conventional, linear print” (RRSG, 2002)…but we know little about them Prior knowledge influences navigational patterns and comprehension recall • e.g., Lawless & Kulikowich (1998); Lawless, Mills, & Brown, (2003); Yang (1997) Affective dispositions differ between more and less successful hypertext readers • e.g., Balcytiene (1999); Yang (1997)
  • 17.
    Added Complexities of Internet (Online) Text Structures Online texts are not bound within a closed system with only one organizational structure (Lawless & Schrader, 2007) Online texts change daily in structure, form, and content (Zakon, 2005) Online texts often contain hidden social, economic, and political agendas not typically found in closed hypertext learning systems (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Fabos, 2008) Online texts introduce infinite intertextual connections and intercultural negotiations (Snyder & Bulfin, 2008; Warshauer & Ware, 2008)
  • 18.
    Online Text Comprehension Hill& Hannafin (1997) found metacognitive strategies, prior knowledge, and perceived self-efficacy influenced how adults learned from Internet text Studies suggest many adolescents are ill-equipped to deal with new online reading comprehension demands: Querying search engines • e.g., Eagleton & Guinee (2002); Sutherland-Smith (2002) Understanding search results • e.g., Coiro & Dobler (2004); Henry (2006); Leu et al. (2004) Critically evaluating online information • e.g., Burbules & Callister (2000); Fabos (2004)
  • 19.
    Online Text Comprehension Threestudies have directly explored Internet use as a complex, multifaceted process of reading comprehension Coiro & Dobler (2007) found skilled readers employed both similar and more complex applications of (1) prior knowledge; (2) inferential reasoning strategies; and (3) self- regulated reading processes. Coiro & Dobler (2004) found traditionally skilled readers with Internet reading experience were aware of and demonstrated strategic reading processes to a higher degree than their less-skilled peers.
  • 20.
    Online Text Comprehension TheNew Literacies Research Team (2005) used this knowledge to design strategy interventions with seventh grade students and measure growth in online reading and science learning. Found higher achievement levels in online reading comprehension and conceptual science knowledge Developed a preliminary, psychometrically sound measure of online reading comprehension (ORCA-Blog) Performance in online reading skills (ORCA-Blog) did not correlate with traditional reading skills (DRP), suggesting that the two instruments measured complementary, but orthogonal skill sets.
  • 21.
    Initial Evidence ofsomething “new” (r=0.19, n = 89, N.S.) Offline Reading = CT State Reading Test Online Reading Comprehension= ORCA Blog Leu, D. Castek, J., Hartman, D., Coiro, J., Henry, L., Kulikowich, J., Lyver, S. (2005).
  • 22.
    Online Text Comprehension- Is it new? old? different? how? Some research suggests the skills sets are similar, but more complex (e.g., Coiro & Dobler, 2007). Other research suggests the skill sets are complementary but orthogonal (e.g., NLRT, 2005). The current study builds on these findings to investigate the extent to which new (and old) comprehension proficiencies may be required on the Internet.
  • 23.
    Key Research Questions RQ1:In a regression analysis, does performance on one measure of online reading comprehension significantly predict performance on a second, parallel measure of online reading comprehension over and above (a) offline reading comprehension and (b) prior knowledge? RQ2: What specific patterns of skill and strategy use appear to distinguish three students of varying levels of online reading comprehension as they engaged in a series of online information requests about science content?
  • 24.
    Quantitative Sample 510 7thgraders from a convenience sample sorted by strata into two groups (economically advantaged and economically challenged) 60 students randomly selected from each strata Final sample included 118 ethnically, economically, and academically diverse seventh graders
  • 25.
  • 26.
    Quantitative Measures of ReaderCharacteristics Offline reading comprehension Prior knowledge Online reading comprehension
  • 27.
    Measuring offline reading comprehension ConnecticutMastery Test (CMT) Standardized reading scores (r = .85) 50 percent: • Forming an initial understanding • Developing an interpretation • Demonstrating a critical stance 50 percent: • The Degrees of Reading Power (DRP)
  • 28.
  • 29.
    Measuring Prior Knowledge Conceptualmeasure with six items scored with a three point rubric (r = .849) What do you know about… the lungs the breathing process oxygen Topic-Specific carbon monoxide poisoning animation reliable information Task-Specific Range 3.5 - 34 Mean = 14.93 (SD = 7.12)
  • 30.
    Measuring Online Reading Comprehension Online Reading Comprehension Assessment (ORCA-Scenarios I and II) Three integrated tasks in a “Treasure Hunt” that asked students to locate, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate information using the Internet Twenty open-ended items; each scored using a 4-point rubric (0-3 points) for a maximum score of 60 points ORCA Scenario I (r = .918) and Scenario II (r = .909)
  • 31.
  • 33.
  • 34.
    Quantitative Procedures 118 studentscompleted measure of prior knowledge and ORCA-Scenario I (recorded with Camtasia) Standardized reading scores were collected from each district 16 weeks later, completed same measure of prior knowledge and ORCA-Scenario II (recorded with Camtasia) This 2nd PK measure was used in regression model
  • 35.
    QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Any questions so far? Comments? QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
  • 36.
    Findings: Predicting Online Reading Comprehension Regression Analysis N = 118 R2 Additional R2 Additional R2 Offline Reading Prior Knowledge Online Reading Total R2 Comprehension Comprehension .351* .074 .154* .579* 35.1% 7.4% 15.4% 57.9% Offline Reading Comprehension = CT State Reading Test Online Reading Comprehension = ORCA Scenario I and II (in Quia interface) Effect Size .33 - large effect Cohen (1988)
  • 37.
    Something different, new,unique? Something predicts online reading comprehension over and above offline reading comprehension & prior knowledge Multiple possibilities (combinations) of offline and online reading comprehension Alternative explanation: Process-based strategy use vs. product-based skills (but it’s still reading comprehension)
  • 38.
    Findings: Predicting Online Reading Comprehension Tested for Interaction Effects There was a significant negative interaction effect between prior knowledge and online reading comprehension (ORCA-Scenario I), t(105) = -2.28, p < .05. When entered into the whole regression model as a fourth predictor variable, this interaction effect explained a small but additional 1.9 percent of variance in the model, which was significant FD(1,104) = 4.782, p < .05
  • 39.
    Findings - MainEffects of Prior Knowledge Among readers Effect of prior Result with… knowledge HIGH online reading PK had no significant t(106)=.079 comprehension effect on ORCA2 p > .05 performance AVERAGE PK had no significant t(106)=1.965 online reading effect on ORCA2 p > .05 comprehension performance LOW online reading PK had a positive & t(106)=2.898 comprehension significant effect on p < .01** ORCA2 performance
  • 41.
    A changing rolefor prior knowledge? PK had a positive and significant effect only among students with low online reading ability; for those with average or high online reading ability, PK had no significant effect on online reading performance This suggests…higher levels of online reading ability may help compensate for lower levels of topic-specific prior knowledge when adolescents complete online reading-for-information tasks.
  • 42.
    Similar findings aboutprior knowledge in rapid locating tasks "Indeed, the participants in the present study were able to access relevant authoritative sites fairly accurately, even when their domain knowledge was low. Some structural supports provided by search engines then, may provide a support for less experienced Internet users and individuals with low domain knowledge” (p. 647). “Perhaps domain knowledge has a more subtle, subjective impact on search behaviors that may require more extensive examination.” Willoughby, Anderson, Wood, Mueller, & Ross (2009). Fast searching for information on the Internet for use in a learning context: The impact of domain knowledge. Computers & Education, 52, 640-648.
  • 43.
    The nature ofthe prior knowledge variable Consider the role of Topic + Task Knowledge
  • 44.
    Part II So whatmore can we learn from a richer qualitative look at the patterns of strategy use among three diverse online readers? How might these patterns begin to help us better understand the “stories behind the numbers”?
  • 45.
    Qualitative Sample Three focalstudents selected based on a combination of their online and offline reading performance (after Time 1) A higher performing online reader and higher performing offline reader [Nicole] A lower performing online reader and lower performing offline reader [Christian] A higher performing online reader but lower performing offline reader [Mikaela]
  • 46.
    Qualitative Procedures Directly afterORCA 2, conducted retrospective think-aloud interviews with three focal students Internet use at home & school Their personal response to the task General reading habits offline and online Elaborate on strategy use while video recording played back Semi-structured follow-up interviews with each student’s reading/language arts teacher and computer teacher Teacher’s perceptions and curriculum components
  • 47.
    Qualitative Data Analysis Iterativestages of a diachronic, developmental, contrastive, case study design Case study of three different readers Diachronic analysis to identify phases of online reading behaviors along a chronological timeline Contrastive case analysis of strategy use Pinpoint developmental aspects of online reading comprehension along a continuum within six phases of online reading
  • 48.
    Six phases ofonline reading (Reading for Information in ORCA-Scenarios I and II) Phase 1. Understanding the task directions Phase 2. Selecting and revising search terms Phase 3. Reading to evaluate the relevancy of hyperlinks in search engines and websites Phase 4. Reading to critically evaluate accuracy, reliability, and commercial bias within and across websites Phase 5. Synthesizing information across three websites to make a best choice Phase 6. Communicating answers to online information requests
  • 49.
    EMERGING ACTION PATTERNS THINK-ALOUD Analyzing patterns within subphases of online reading
  • 50.
    Qualitative Analysis: Developmental Trends??? Lower performing Average performing Higher performing online reader online reader online reader 2 3 1 Task directions Search terms ? Evaluate relevancy Evaluate accuracy, reliability and stance Synthesize Communicate
  • 51.
    Qualitative Finding #1 Finding #1 A developmental progression of reading comprehension skills and strategies distinguished the three readers’ performance within each phase Phase 1: Understanding the task directions [monitoring understanding] Lower-performing Average-performing Higher-performing online reader online reader online reader He was not sure what She explained she was She was questioning to pay attention to - he reading it slowly to the task and was confused so he make sure it made monitoring her just kept reading. He sense. She was understanding of the acknowledged this reading all the topic and the difficulty in the questions and writing vocabulary. She interview, but had a them down to help mentioned the 2nd limited repertoire of remember. She was task was more strategies to address aware of her difficulty, challenging and wasn’t his confusion about and used a quite sure which detail where to start. compensatory strategy to focus on first. (write down clues).
  • 52.
    At each phase,developmental differences appeared to characterize three students with different overall levels of online reading proficiency Lower Average Higher Locating .com strategy Whole phrase Uses keywords Evaluating Struggled to locate Judged reliability Reliability “About Author” based on length of Examined author’s level page coverage of integrity/expertise Evaluating Ran out of time Detected related Detected related Commercial and did not have advertising but over- advertising and Bias opportunity to generalized caution expressed balanced demonstrate (believed all caution (may be strategy use information was fake) exxagerated/slanted) Communicating Copied the long Copy/pasted address address by hand with mouse shortcut
  • 53.
    Understanding Task Directions (Developmental Differences) High (50 seconds) “I was reading the clues and I was like, Oh, United Kingdom! I like the United Kingdom! But then I got to the asthma part and I was like, “what does asthmas have to do with carbon monoxide poisoning, and then I saw it. And then the animation part - I love having animation!” Avg. (3 min. 30 sec) “I read the clues and I read the questions, and then up here [pointing to the link to the MSN homepage], it goes to the link. I read the question and I wrote down (on the paper next to her) what the questions are, so I don’t have to click back and forth later on to see if I got the right thing.” Low (3 min 26 sec) “Well, my plan is to like, to check it out, what to do, which one to look at, and where to look at it…I was thinking that I wouldn’t be able to find it - that it was going to be hard”.
  • 54.
    LOCATING [Nicole: Task2] Higher Performing Online Reader 0:00-0:20 0:20-0:30 0:30-0:47 1:11. The address is http://www.njpies.org/co
  • 55.
    LOCATING [Christian: Task2] Lower Performing Online Reader 0:00-4:15 4:15-5:30 6:15-8:20 10:00-10:45 “In questions 1-4, I just can’t find it.”
  • 56.
    Critically Evaluating Reliability (Developmental Differences) MOST RELIABLE: [Nicole - higher performing] This site is most reliable because it gives a lot of information. It is also done by a college institute. MOST RELIABLE: [Mikaela - average performing] This site is most reliable because the site is all about the facts on carbon monoxide poisoning and because you learn more about carbon monoxide poisoning. MOST RELIABLE: [Christian - lower performing] [ran out of time looking for author’ s name] I was all shocked ‘ cuz I was like kinda lost, cause it’ s kinda hard
  • 57.
    Critically Evaluating Reliability (Developmental Differences) LEAST RELIABLE: [Nicole - higher performing] This site looks like they’ re trying to sell me stuff - I didn’ t think it was the least reliable, but I didn’ t think it was the most reliable - it was in the middle. Cause if they try to sell you something, that doesn’ t always mean it’ s not reliable. It means that it gives you a slight thought that it might not be reliable, but it might just be trying to help you, like picture carbon monoxide detectors now and think the life lost may be yours next time. LEAST RELIABLE: [Mikaela - average performing] This site is the least reliable because 1) the site has the least facts and 2) because the site is the least accurate for people to learn anything because there’ s only 2 1/2 paragraphs. LEAST RELIABLE: [Christian - lower performing] This site said “ For Immediate Release” - I think they just want to put that out really quick - it means they really don’ t want to help, they just put information out fast.
  • 58.
    Qualitative Finding #2 Developmentaldifferences appeared to be affected by five key dimensions of offline and online reading comprehension ability including: (1) fluency; (2) self-regulated reading; See Figure 1 in (3) inferential reasoning; Handout for Details (4) critical reasoning; and (5) metacognitive knowledge about what, how, and when to employ particular online reading processes Remember: Strategic knowledge = declarative, procedural, and conditional Offline PK Online Total R2 35.1% 7.4% 15.4% 57.9%
  • 59.
    The Interplay BetweenOffline and Online Reading Ability 1. Understanding task directions Primarily offline 2. Selecting & revising search terms Primarily online 3. Evaluating relevancy of Primarily offline with new online hyperlinks procedures and contexts 4. Evaluating accuracy, reliability Primarily offline with new online and commercial bias procedures and contexts 5. Synthesizing Primarily offline with new online procedures and contexts 6. Communicating Combine offline and new online Offline PK Online Total R2 35.1% plus 15.4% 35.1% 7.4% 15.4 57.9%
  • 60.
    Qualitative Finding #3 Onlinereading comprehension might be conceived as overlapping and highly integrated dimensions of strategic offline and online reading processes rather than a linear sequence of isolated reading skills. Thus, online reading comprehension instruction should weave offline and online reading strategy practice within authentic tasks that integrate online locating, evaluating, synthesis, and communication.
  • 61.
    Implications for LiteracyTheory Preliminary evidence of the psychological reality of new literacies required to comprehend information on the Internet (Leu et al, 2004). Further informs long-debated theoretical questions about reading comprehension by providing preliminary evidence that online reading comprehension may best be characterized as both: a highly integrated set of strategic reading processes (see Thorndike, 1974) that can be organized into sets of different sub-skills (see Davis, 1972) related to six phases of online reading
  • 62.
    Implications for LiteracyResearch Findings contribute to emerging work that seeks to identify the range of skills and strategies that effectively characterize online reading comprehension (TICA Project, 2005-2007). Findings help us begin to more precisely understand the possible similarities and complexities / differences between offline and online reading comprehension processes revealed in previous work (e.g., Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Leu et al, 2005). Findings extend work identifying qualitative shifts in strategic offline processing that distinguish novices from experts (e.g., Alexander et al.) to offer preliminary patterns of qualitative shifts in online comprehension strategy use that appeared to distinguish higher-performing online readers from lower- performing online readers.
  • 63.
    Implications for ClassroomPractice Inform diagnosis and remediation within each phase of online reading comprehension We can no longer assume that one reader will do equally well or be equally challenged across all dimensions of an online reading task (or that how you read offline predicts entirely how you read online) Preliminary set of criteria for determining individual strengths and weaknesses can inform realistic next steps for remediation within and across the phases of online reading comprehension
  • 64.
    Implications for ClassroomPractice Inform instruction of online reading comprehension Design leveled (Mosenthal, 1996) and explicit instruction in: • Locating & communicating skills to enable access to online texts • Critical evaluation skills for all levels of readers to facilitate deeper questioning of texts and sources • Synthesis strategies that consider the overlaps between evaluation, synthesis, and communication skills
  • 65.
    We need tobe cautious in our interpretations… Tasks did not represent the full extent of online literacy experiences or new literacy components Focused on externally assigned questions as opposed to self-selected topics of inquiry Narrow view of evaluation, synthesis, and communication Scoring system reflected the task demands Can’t really generalize from three case studies that in some ways were more similar than different (but findings can inform a replication study with larger N)
  • 66.
    Significance of theStudy Having the skills to comprehend information on the Internet will play a central role in academic success in an information age. A better understanding of the nature of the new skills & strategies of online reading comprehension can: Inform an emerging theory of new literacies Provide rich insights into online reading profiles Inform the development of diagnostic instruments and better instructional strategies, particularly for those students who struggle the most with online reading Pursuing the ideas that emerged may prompt new focus for addressing several of the literacy challenges we face today.
  • 67.
    QuickTimeª and a QuickTimeª and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. are needed to see this picture. Thank you. Questions? Concerns? Ideas? Julie Coiro University of Rhode Island http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/coirodissertation/