Predicting Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of Offline Reading Skills, Online Reading Skills, and Prior Knowledge

Journal of Literacy Research

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 352-392

  Coiro, Julie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

background knowledge; comprehension processes; digital literacy; new literacies; online reading and writing; prior knowledge; schema

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857489704     PISSN: 1086296X     EISSN: 15548430     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1086296X11421979     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' importance assignment process. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), National reading conference yearbook, 35: Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers and researchers (pp. 30-40). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
2. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2008). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. 69-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 201-225). New York, NY: Guilford.
4. Aiken L. S., West S. G. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991:.
5. Alexander P. A. Domain knowledge: Evolving issues and emerging concerns. Educational Psychologist. 1992;27:33-51.
6. Alexander, P. A., & Fox, E. (2004). Historical perspectives on reading research and practice. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 33-59). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
7. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2002). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Alexander P. A., Schallert D. L., Hare V. C. Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research. 1991;61:315-343.
9. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York, NY: Longman.
10. Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 77-95). New York, NY: Guilford.
11. Balcytiene A. Exploring individual processes of knowledge construction with hypertext. Instructional Science. 1999;27:303-328.
12. Barab S. A., Bowdish B. E., Lawless K. A. Hypermedia navigation: Profiles of hypermedia users. Educational Technology Research and Development. 1997;45 (3): 23-42.
13. Biancarosa G. Snow C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Retrieved from www.all4ed.org/files/ReadingNext.pdf.
14. Bilal D. 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. 2000;51:646-665.
15. Bilal D. Children's use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: II. Cognitive and physical behaviors on research tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 2001;52:118-136.
16. Borgman C. L., Hirsch S. G., Walter V. A., Gallagher A. L. Children's searching behavior on browsing and keyword searching online catalogs: The Science Library Catalog project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1995;46:663-684.
17. Bransford J. D.,Barclay J. R.,Franks J. J.Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach.Cognitive Psychology. 1972;3:193-209.
18. Bransford J. D.,Johnson M. K.Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1972;11:717-726.
19. Brown, G. (1999). Information literacy curriculum & assessment: Implications for schools from New Zealand. In J. Henri & K. Bonanno (Eds.), The information literate school community: Best practice (pp. 55-74). Wagga Wagga, Australia: Charles Stuart University, Centre for Information Studies.
20. Burbules N. C.,Callister T. A.Watch IT: The risks and promises of information technologies for education. Boulder, CO: Westview; 2000:.
21. Burke, J. (1963). Measurement scales and statistical models. In M. H. Marz (Ed.), Theories in contemporary psychology (pp. 147-159). New York, NY: Macmillan.
22. Calisir F.,Gurel Z.Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control.Computers in Human Behavior. 2003;19:135-145.
23. Caney D. (1999). Inside/outside intertextuality. Retrieved from http://www.overthere.com.au/digital/index.html.
24. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Coiro J. Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. Reading Teacher. 2003;56:458-464.
26. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2004, December). Investigating how less-skilled readers use reading strategies while locating information on the Internet. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
27. Coiro J.,Dobler E.Exploring the comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers as they search for and locate information on the Internet.Reading Research Quarterly. 2007;42:214-257.
28. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research in new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. CoiroJ.MalloyJ.RogersA. (2006). Patterns of effective strategy use among adolescent online readers. In LeuD. J.ReinkingD. (Chairs), Studying the new literacies of online reading comprehension among adolescents at risk to become dropouts. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/iesproject/documents/NRC2006/NRC2006_TICA_paper3.pdf.
30. Connecticut State Department of Education. (2005). Priority school district criteria and funding. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0561.htm.
31. Cope B.,Kalantzis M. Multiliteracies. London, UK: Routledge; 2000:.
32. Darling-Hammond L.,Wise A.Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement.Elementary School Journal. 1985;85:315-336.
33. Dee-Lucas, D. (1999). Information location in instructional hypertext: Effects of content domain expertise. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 1999 (pp. 242-247). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
34. DeSchryver, M., & Spiro, R. (2009). New forms of deep learning on the Web: Meeting the challenge of cognitive load in conditions of unfettered exploration. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 134-152). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
35. Dillon A.,Gabbard R.Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style.Review of Educational Research. 1998;68:322-349.
36. Dole J. A.,Duffy G. G.,Roehler L. E.,Pearson P. D.Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction.Review of Educational Research. 1991;61:239-264.
37. 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. 298-304). New York, NY: Guilford.
38. Dreher M. J.,Guthrie J. T.Cognitive processes in textbook chapter search tasks.Reading Research Quarterly. 1990;25:323-339.
39. Dreher M.,Sammons R.Fifth-graders' search for information in a textbook.Journal of Reading Behavior. 1994;26:301-314.
40. 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.
41. Eagleton M. B., Dobler E. Reading the Web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New York, NY: Guilford; 2007:.
42. Eagleton M. B.,Guinee K.Strategies for supporting student Internet inquiry.New England Reading Association Journal. 2002;38:39-47.
43. Educational Testing Service. (2003). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/ICTREPORT.pdf.
44. Fabos B. Wrong turn on the information superhighway: Education and the commercialization of the Internet. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2004:.
45. Fabos, B. (2008). The price of information: Critical literacy, education, and today's Internet. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, D. Leu, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 839-870). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. FitzgeraldM. A. (1997). Evaluating information: An information literacy challenge. School library media research. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume21999/vol2fitzgerald.cfm.
47. Foltz, P. W. (1996). Comprehension, coherence, and strategies in hypertext and linear text. In J.-F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 109-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 171-204). White Plains, NY: Longman.
49. Graesser A. C.,Singer M.,Trabasso T.Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.Psychological Review. 1994;101:371-395.
50. Green S. B.How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?.Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1991;26:449-510.
51. Guthrie J. T.,Weber S.,Kimmerly N.Searching documents: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations.Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1993;18:186-221.
52. Hartman, D. K., Morsink, P. M., & Zheng, J. (2010). From print to pixels: The evolution of cognitive conceptions of reading comprehension. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 131-164). New York, NY: Guilford.
53. Henry L. A.SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet.Reading Teacher. 2006;59:614-627.
54. Henry L.A. (2007). Exploring new literacies pedagogy and online reading comprehension among middle school students and teachers: Issues of social equity or social exclusion? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
55. Hill J.,Hannafin M.Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web.Educational Technology Research and Development. 1997;45 (4): 37-64.
56. Hobbs, R. (2006). Multiple visions of multimedia literacy: Emerging areas of synthesis. In M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (pp. 15-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57. Huey E. B. The psychology and pedagogy of reading: With a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, text, and hygiene of reading. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1908:.
58. International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st century technologies: A position statement. Newark, DE: Author.
59. Jaccard J.,Wan C. K.LISREL approaches in interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996:.
60. Jacobson F. F.,Ignacio E. N.Teaching reflection: Information seeking and evaluation in a digital library environment.Library Trends. 1997;45:771-803.
61. Johnston P. Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; 1983:.
62. Karchmer R. A.The journey ahead: Thirteen teachers report how the Internet influences literacy and literacy instruction in their K-12 classrooms.Reading Research Quarterly. 2001;36:442-467.
63. Kim J. O.Multivariate analysis of ordinal variables.American Journal of Sociology. 1975;81:261-298.
64. Kingsley T. (2011). Integrating new literacy instruction to support online reading comprehension: An examination of online literacy performance in 5th grade classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
65. Kintsch W.The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review. 1988;95:163-182.
66. Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading: Comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67. Kirsch I. S.,Mosenthal P. B.Exploring document literacy: Variables underlying the performance of young adults.Reading Research Quarterly. 1990;25:5-30.
68. Klauda S. L.,Guthrie J. T.Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008;100:310-321.
69. KuiperE. (2007). Teaching web literacy in primary education. Enschede, Netherlands: Imskamp. Retrieved from http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/10836/1/7533.pdf.
70. Kulthau C.Information search process: A summary of research and implications for school library media programs.School Library Media Quarterly. 1989;18:19-25.
71. Labovitz S.Some observations on measurement and statistics. Social Forces. 1967;46 (2): 151-160.
72. Lankshear C.,Knobel M.New literacies. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2003:.
73. Lawless K. A.,Kulikowich J. M.Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis.Journal of Educational Computing Research. 1996;14:385-399.
74. Lawless, K. A., & Schrader, P. G. (2008). Where do we go now? Understanding research on navigation in complex digital environments. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, D. Leu, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 267-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75. Lenhart A.,Simon M.,Graziano M.The Internet and education: Findings of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2001:.
76. Lenski S. D.Strategic knowledge when reading in order to write.Reading Psychology. 1998;19:287-315.
77. Leslie L.,Caldwell J.Qualitative Reading Inventory-II. New York, NY: Longman; 1995:.
78. Leu, D. J. (2007, May). What happened when we weren't looking? How reading comprehension has changed and what we need to do about it. Keynote research address presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Toronto, Canada.
79. LeuD. J.CastekJ.HartmanD.CoiroJ.HenryL.KulikowichJ.LyverS. (2005). Evaluating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning. Final report presented to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory/Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/ncrel.html.
80. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568-1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
81. Leu D. J.,O'Byrne W. I.,Zawilinski L.,McVerry J. G.,Everett-Cacopardo H.Expanding the new literacies conversation.Educational Researcher. 2009;38:264-269.
82. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., & O'Neil, M. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In A. Berger, L. Rush, & J. Eakle (Eds.), Secondary school reading and writing: What research reveals for classroom practices (pp. 37-68). Chicago, IL: NCTE/NCRLL.
83. MacGregor S. K.Hypermedia navigation profiles: Cognitive characteristics and information processing strategies.Journal of Educational Computing Research. 1999;20:189-206.
84. Martin, A. (2006). Literacies for the digital age. In A. Martin & D. Madigan (Eds.), Digital literacies for learning (pp. 3-25). London, UK: Facet.
85. McLaughlin M.,DeVoogd G.Critical literacy as comprehension: Expanding reader response.Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 2003;48:52-62.
86. McNamara, T. P., Miller, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1991). Mental models and reading comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 490-511). White Plains, NY: Longman.
87. Means M. L.,Voss J. F.Star Wars: A developmental study of expert and novice knowledge structures.Journal of Memory and Language. 1985;24:746-757.
88. Meyer B. J. F.,Brandt D. M.,Bluth G. J. Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students.Reading Research Quarterly. 1980;16:72-103.
89. Moje E.A call for new research on new and multi-literacies.Research in the Teaching of English. 2009;43:348-362.
90. Moore P. Information problem solving: A wider view of library skills.Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1995;20:1-31.
91. Mosenthal P.Situated learning and methods coursework in the teaching of literacy.Journal of Literacy Research. 1996;28:379-403.
92. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Educational technology in U.S. public schools: Fall 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010034.
93. Nelson, J., & Hayes, J. R. (1988). How the writing context shapes students' strategies for writing from sources (Tech. Rep. No. 16). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Study of Writing.
94. Neville M.,Pugh A.Reading ability and ability to use a book-A study of middle school children.Reading. 1975;9 (3): 23-31.
95. OECD Program for International Student Assessment. (2003). Are students ready for a technology rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,2340,en_32252351_32236173_35995743_1_1_1_1,00.html.
96. Paris A. H.,Paris S. G.Assessing narrative comprehension in children.Reading Research Quarterly. 2003;38:36-76.
97. Paris S. G.,Lipson M.,Wixson K.Becoming a strategic reader.Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1983;8:293-316.
98. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-640). White Plains, NY: Longman.
99. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). A framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/.
100. Pearson, P. D. (2001). Learning to teach reading: The status of the knowledge base. In C. Roller (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the research agenda (pp. 4-19). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
101. Pearson, P. D., & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices-Past, present, and future. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
102. Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 145-199). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
103. Potelle H.,Rouet J.-F.Effects of content representation and readers' prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2003;58:327-345.
104. Pressley M.,Afflerbach P.Verbal protocols for reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1995:.
105. Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2002:.
106. Rouet, J.-F., & Levonen, J. J. (1996). Studying and learning with hypertext: Empirical studies and their implications. In J.-F. Rouet (Ed.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 9-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
107. Rupley W. H.,Willson V. L.Content, domain, and word knowledge: Relationship to comprehension of narrative and expository text.Reading and Writing. 1996;8:419-432.
108. Salmerón L.,Cañas J. J.,Kintsch W.,Fajardo I.Reading strategies and hypertext comprehension.Discourse Processes. 2005;40:171-191.
109. Schacter J.,Chung G. K.,Dorr A.Children's Internet searching on complex problems: Performance and process analysis.Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1998;49:840-849.
110. Schmar-Dobler E. (2003). Reading on the Internet: The link between literacy and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/jaal/9-03_column.
111. Snyder, I., & Bulfin, S. (2008). Using new media in the secondary English classroom. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, D. Leu, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 805-838). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
112. Spires, H., & 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, NY: Guilford.
113. Spiro, R. (2004). Principled pluralism for adaptive flexibility in teaching and learning to read. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 654-659). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
114. Spiro R. J.,Feltovich P. J.,Jacobson M. I.,Coulson R. L.Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.Educational Technology. 1991;35:24-33.
115. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. D. Freedle (Ed.), Advances in discourse processes: Vol. 2. New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53-119). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
116. Stevens S. S.On the theory of scales of measurement.Science. 1946;103 (2684): 677-680.
117. Sutherland-Smith W. Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen.Reading Teacher. 2002;55:662-669.
118. Tabachnick B. G.,Fidell L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
119. Touchstone Associates. (2004). Degrees of reading power (DRP): Primary and standard exam set. Brewster, NY: Author.
120. Valencia S.,Heibert E.,Afflerbach P.Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; 1994:.
121. Voss J. F.,Vesonder G. T.,Spilich G. J.Text generation and recall by high knowledge and low knowledge individuals.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1980;19:651-667.
122. Walton M.,Archer A.The web and information literacy: Scaffolding the use of web sources in a project-based curriculum.British Journal of Educational Technology. 2004;35:173-186.
123. 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.
124. Willoughby T.,Anderson A.,Wood E.,Mueller J.,Ross C.Fast searching for information on the Internet to use in a learning context: The impact of prior knowledge.Computers & Education. 2009;52:640-648.
125. Willson V. L.,Rupley W. H.A structural equation model for reading comprehension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge.Scientific Studies of Reading. 1997;1:45-63.
126. Wolfe C. R.Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2001:.
127. Wolfe M. B.,Goldman S. R.Relationships between adolescents' text processing and reasoning.Cognition & Instruction. 2005;23:467-502.
128. Yang S. C.Information seeking as problem-solving: Using a qualitative approach to uncover the novice learner's information-seeking processes in a Perseus hypertext system.Library and Information Science Research. 1997;19:71-92.
129. Zakon R. H. (2005). Hobbes' Internet timeline. Retrieved from http://www.zakon.org/robert/Internet/timeline.
130. Zhang S.,Duke N. K.Strategies for Internet reading with different reading purposes: A descriptive study of twelve good Internet readers.Journal of Literacy Research. 2008;40:128-162.