Gender differences in online reading engagement, metacognitive strategies, navigation skills and reading literacy

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 252-271

  Wu, J Y ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Gender difference; Metacognitive strategy; Navigation skill; PISA; Reading engagement; Reading literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900400209     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12054     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 37(1), 136-152.
2. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 363-383.
3. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
4. Barab, S. A., Bowdish, B. E., & Lawless, K. A. (1997). Hypermedia navigation: Profiles of hypermedia users. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 23-41.
5. Birkerts, S. (2006). The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age. Boston, MA: Faber & Faber.
6. Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.
7. Bousbia, N., Rebaï, I., Labat, J. M., & Balla, A. (2010). Learners' navigation behavior identification based on trace analysis. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, 20(5), 455-494.
8. Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927-931.
9. Carroll, J. (2004). Sex differences in developmental reading disability: Findings from four epidemiology studies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(16), 2007-2012.
10. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504.
11. Chen, S.-Y., & Fu, Y.-C. (2009). Internet use and academic achievement: Gender differences in early adolescence. Adolescence, 44(176), 797-821.
12. Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331-362.
13. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 483-511.
14. Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students' comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 570-580.
15. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
16. Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320-334.
17. Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 521-535.
18. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
19. Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students' performance on a concurrent Reading comprehension Task? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51-53.
20. Froiland, J. M., & Oros, E. (2013). Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom engagement as longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational Psychology, doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.822964
21. Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432-448.
22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
23. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 601-614.
24. Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use. Computers & Education, 56(2), 370-378.
25. Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187.
26. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
27. Knighton, T., & Bussiere, P. (2006). Educational outcomes at age 19 associated with reading ability at age 15. Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics Research Papers Ottawa: Statistics Canada (June).
28. Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(4), 439-451.
29. Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1999). Multilevel mediation modeling in group-based intervention studies. Evaluation Review, 23(4), 418-444.
30. Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(2), 249-277.
31. Lau, K. L. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: A think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 383-399.
32. Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190.
33. Lawless, K. A., Brown, S. W., Mills, R., & Mayall, H. J. (2003). Knowledge, interest, recall and navigation: A look at hypertext processing. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(3), 911-934.
34. Leat, D., & Lin, M. (2003). Developing a pedagogy of metacognition and transfer: Some signposts for the generation and use of knowledge and the creation of research partnerships. British Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 383-414.
35. Lee, Y., Waxman, H. C., Wu, J., Michko, G. M., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of teaching and learning with technology. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 133-146.
36. Lee, Y., & Wu, J. (2012). The effect of individual differences in the inner and outer states of ICT on engagement in online reading activities and PISA 2009 reading literacy: Exploring the relationship between the old and new reading literacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 336-342.
37. Lee, Y., & Wu, J. (2013). The indirect effects of online social entertainment and information seeking activities on reading literacy. Computers & Education, 67, 168-177.
38. Lietz, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 317-344.
39. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700-712.
40. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum Psych Press.
41. Mangen, A. (2008). Hypertext fiction reading: Haptics and immersion. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(4), 404-419.
42. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
43. Naumann, J., Richter, T., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2008). Working memory capacity and reading skill moderate the effectiveness of strategy training in learning from hypertext. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 197-213.
44. OECD (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris, France: OECD Publications. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/39722183.pdf
45. OECD (2009a). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
46. ® (2nd ed.). Paris, France: OECD Publications.
47. OECD (2011a). How do girls compare to boys in reading skills? In OECD (Ed.), PISA 2009 at a glance (pp. 16-17). Paris, France: OECD Publications. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095250-5-en
48. OECD (2011b). PISA 2009 results: Students on line. Digital technologies and performance (Vol. VI). Paris, France: OECD Publications.
49. Papastergiou, M., & Solomonidou, C. (2005). Gender issues in Internet access and favourite Internet activities among Greek high school pupils inside and outside school. Computers & Education, 44(4), 377-393.
50. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Vol. 4, pp. 788-810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
51. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
52. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.
53. Ring, G. (1991). Student reactions to courseware: Gender differences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 210-215.
54. Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition and motivation: A follow-up study of German students in grades 7 and 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 75-86.
55. Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. (2003). Gender differences in patterns of searching the web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 335-348.
56. Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2011). Reading skills and children's navigation strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1143-1151.
57. Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Caãs, J. (2006a). Coherence or interest as basis for improving hypertext comprehension. Information Design Journal, 14(1), 45-55.
58. Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Caãs, J. (2006b). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1157-1171.
59. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
60. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.
61. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 191-210.
62. Steiger, J. H. (1998). A note on multiple sample extensions of the RMSEA fit index. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 411-419.
63. Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Huang, J.-S. (2008). Improving children's reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1552-1571.
64. Tabatabai, D., & Shore, B. M. (2005). How experts and novices search the web. Library & Information Science Research, 27(2), 222-248.
65. Tsai, M. J. (2009). Online Information Searching Strategy Inventory (OISSI): A quick version and a complete version. Computers & Education, 53(2), 473-483.
66. Tsai, M. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Junior high school students' Internet usage and self-efficacy: A re-examination of the gender gap. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1182-1192.
67. Veenman, M. V. J., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14(6), 621-640.
68. Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1392-1404.
69. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817-826.
70. White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481.
71. Wilhelm, J. D. (2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books.
72. Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers' metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 269-288.
73. Winne, P. H. (1995). Self-regulation is ubiquitous but its forms vary with knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 223-228.
74. Wu, J., & Kwok, O. (2012). Using structural equation modeling to analyze complex survey data: A comparison between design-based single-level and model-based multi-level approaches. Structural Equation Modeling - A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(1), 16-35.
75. Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students' online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181-196.
76. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.