Strategies for internet reading with different reading purposes: A descriptive study of twelve good internet readers

Journal of Literacy Research

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 128-162

  Zhang, Shenglan ^a   Duke, Nell K ^b  

^a WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 45949109968     PISSN: 1086296X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10862960802070491     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Afflerbach, P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 168-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Altun, A. (2000). Patterns in cognitive processes and strategies in hypertext reading: A case study of two experienced computer users. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 35-55.
3. Alvermann, D. (Ed.). (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New York: Peter Lang.
4. Barab, S. A., Young, M. F., & Wang, J. (1999). The effects of navigational and generative activities in hypertext learning on problem solving and comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 283-301.
5. Calisir, F., & Gurel, Z. (2003). Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 135-145.
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, 214-257.
7. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.
8. Conklin, J. (1986). A survey of hypertext. (MCC Technical Report No. STP-456-86). Austin, TX: MCC Software Technology Program.
9. Duke, N. K. (2005). Comprehension of what for what: Comprehension as a non-unitary construct. In S. Paris & S. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 93-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. 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.
11. Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties with reading comprehension. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 501-520). New York: Guilford.
12. Duke, N. K., Schmar-Dobler, E., & Zhang, S. (2006). Comprehension and technology. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology, Vol. 2 (pp. 317-326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
14. Hofman, R., & van Oostendorp, H. (1999). Cognitive effects of a structural overview in a hypertext. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 129-140.
15. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.
16. International Reading Association. (2001). Integrating literacy and technology in the curriculum: A position statement. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/positions_technology.html
17. Jaynes. J. T. (1989). Limited freedom: Linear reflections on nonlinear texts. In E. Barrett (Ed.), The Society of text: Hypertext, hypermedia and the social construction of information, (pp. 148-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. st century: Technological transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323-342). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Keith, M. (1998, November). Stimulated recall and teachers' thought processes: A critical review of the methodology and an alternative perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Louisville, KY.
20. Klobas, J. E., & Clyde, L. A. (2001). Social influence and Internet use. Library Management, 22, 61-68.
21. Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 217-299.
22. Langer, J. A. (1985). Children's sense of genre: A study of performance on parallel reading and writing. Written Communication, 2, 157-187.
23. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
24. Leu, D. J. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the Internet. In A. E. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 310-336). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
25. Leu, D. J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Lyver, S. (2005). Evaluating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning. Final Research Report. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory/Learning Point Associates.
26. Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Henry, L. A., & Reinking, D. (in press). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C. C. Block, S. Parris, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press.
27. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (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. 1568-1611). International Reading Association: Newark, DE.
28. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. (1998). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors, 40, 18-27.
29. Mohageg, M. F. (1992). The influence of hypertext linking structures on the efficiency of information retrieval. Human Factors. 34, 351-367.
30. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
31. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000, April). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: Author.
32. Narvaez, D., van Den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488-496.
33. st century: Twenty-eighth yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 31-50). Logan, UT: College Reading Association.
34. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review. 66, 60-92.
35. Ozok, A. A., & Salvendy, G. (2003). The effect of language inconsistency on performance and satisfaction on the World Wide Web: Results from three experiments. Behavior and Information Technology, 22, 155-163.
36. Paré, A., & Smart, G. (1994). Observing genres in action: Towards a research methodology. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 146-154). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
37. Patterson, N. G. (2000). Hypertext and the changing roles of readers. English Journal, 90, 74-80.
38. Potelle, H., & Rouet, J. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers' prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 327-345.
39. Pressley, M., & P. Afflerbach. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. th ed.) NY: Wiley.
41. Pressley, M. P., & Hilden, K. (2004). Verbal protocols of reading. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 308-321). New York: Guilford.
42. RAND Reading Study Group [RRSG]. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
43. Scales, A. M., & Rhee, O. (2001). Adult reading habits and patterns. Reading Psychology, 22, 175-203.
44. Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003, December). Building a bridge: An exploration of the reading strategies used for Internet reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
45. Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the Internet; The link between literacy and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 80-85.
46. Slatin, J. (1991). Reading hypertext: Order and coherence in a New Medium. In P. Delaney & G. P. Landow (Eds.), Hypermedia and literary studies (pp. 153-170). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
47. Spiro, R. J. (2006). The post-Gutenberg world of the mind: The shape of the new learning. Educational Technology, 46(2), 3-4.
48. Spruijt, S., & Jansen, C. (1999). The influence of task and format on reading results with an online text. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 92-99.
49. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
50. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55, 662-669.
51. van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. (2002). Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. In J. Otero, J. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 131-154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. van Nimwegen, C., Pouw, M., & van Oostendorp, H. (1999). The influence of structure and reading-manipulation on usability of hypertexts. Interacting with Computers, 12, 7-21.
53. Waniek, J., Brunstein, A., Naumann, A., & Krems, J. F. (2003). Interaction between text structure representation and situation model in hypertext reading. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62, 103-111.
54. Zumbach, J., Reimann, P., & Koch, S. (2001). Influence of passive versus active information access to hypertextual information resources on cognitive and emotional parameters. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 301-318.