College student academic online reading: A review of the current literature

Journal of College Reading and Learning

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 89-98

  Sandberg, Kate ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907022504     PISSN: 10790195     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10790195.2011.10850350     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Berg, S. A., Hoffman, K., S’ Dawson, D. (2010). Not on the same page: Undergraduates’ information retrieval in electronic and print books. The Journal of Academic Librarian- ship, 36(6), 518-525.
2. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009. 09.024
3. Bromley, K. (2010). Picture a world without pens, pencils, and paper: The unanticipated future of reading and writing. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(1), 97-108.
4. Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiments in digital literacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 421-429. doi:10.1089/1094931041774613
5. Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2009). Changes over time in digital literacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 713-715. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0264
6. 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. doi: 10.1089/cpb.208.0107
7. Hamer, A. B., & McGrath, J. (2010, November). On-screen vs. on-page reading strategies. Session conducted at the meeting of College Reading and Learning Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
8. Hsieh, P-H, S’ Dwyer, F. (2009). The instructional effect of online reading strategies and learning styles on student academic achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 36-50.
9. Ipri, T. (2010). Introducing transliteracy: What does it mean for academic libraries? College & Research Library News, 71(10), 532-3, 567.
10. Johnson, T. E., Archibald, T. N., & Tnebaum, G. (2010). Individual and team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1496-1507. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.014 Kauffman, D. F., Zhao, R, & Yang, Y-S. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.04.001
11. Larson, K. (2007). The technology of text. IEEE Spectrum, 44(5), 26-31.
12. Le Bigot, L., S’ Rouet, J-F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445-470. doi: 10.1080/10862960701675317
13. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the last ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700-713.
14. Liu, Z. (2006). Print vs. electronic resources: A study of user perceptions, preferences, and uses. Information Processing & Management, 42(2), 583-592. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2004.12.002
15. Liu, Z., & Huang, X. (2008). Gender differences in the online reading environment. Journal of Documentation, 64(4), 616-626. doi: 10.1108/002204108 10884101
16. Longhurst, J. (2003). World history on the World Wide Web: A student satisfaction survey and a blinding flash of the obvious. The History Teacher, 36(3), 343-357.
17. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2011). The effect of diagrams on online reading processes and memory. Discourse Processes, 48(2), 69-92. doi: 10.1080/01638531003694561
18. McEneaney, J. E., Li, L., Allen, K., & Guzniczak, L. (2009). Stance, navigation, and reader response in expository hypertext. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(1), 1-45. doi:10.1080/10862960802695081
19. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903620106
20. Orme, W. A. (2008). Information literacy and first-year students. In M. M. Watts, (Ed.), New Directions in Teaching & Learning, 2008(114), 63-70
21. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. E. (1993). Reciprocal teaching: A review of 19 experimental studies (Report No. 574). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
22. Rushcoff, D., & Dretzin, R. (Writers), & Dretzin, R. (Director). (2011). Digital Nation [Tblevision series episode]. In D. Fanning (Executive producer), Frontline. Boston, MA: WGBH/Boston.
23. Spencer, C. (2006). Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a computer screen. Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 33-50.
24. Thomas, S., Joseph, C., Laccetti, J., Mason, B., Mills, S., Perrill, S., & Pullinger, K. (2007, December 3). Transliteracy: Crossing divides. First Monday, 12. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2060/1908
25. Wilder, S. (2005, January 7). Information literacy makes all the wrong assumptions. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B13.
26. Woody, W. D., Daniel, D., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948. doi: 10.1016/ j.compedu.2010.04.005
27. Yang, Y-F. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading instruction. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1193-1201. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.016