The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement Gap

Reading Research Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 37-59

  Leu, Donald J ^a   Forzani, Elena ^a   Rhoads, Chris ^a   Maykel, Cheryl ^a   Kennedy, Clint ^a   Timbrell, Nicole ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Achievement gap; Adolescence; Assessment; At risk factors; Comprehension; Digital media literacies; Early adolescence; New literacies; New Literacies; Performance based; Policy; Specific subject areas (math, art, etc.); Standards; Struggling learners

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921822527     PISSN: 00340553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.85     Document Type: Article

References (122)

1. Abdi, H,. (2007). Bonferroni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. In, N.J. Salkind, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 103-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412952644
2. Achieve. (2014). The Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
3. Afflerbach, P,. (2007). Understanding and using reading assessment, K-12. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
4. Afflerbach, P., &, Cho, B.-Y,. (2010). 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.
5. Alvermann, D.E., Hutchins, R.J., &, McDevitt, R,. (2012). Adolescents' engagement with Web 2.0 and social media: Research, theory, and practice. Research in the Schools, 19 (1), 33-44.
6. Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., &, Wilkinson, I.A.G., (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
7. Annie, E,. Casey Foundation. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/resources/early-warning-why-reading-by-the-end-of-third-grade-matters
8. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). The Australian Curriculum, v7.0. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au
9. Bailey, M.J., &, Dynarski, S.M,. (2011). Gains and gaps: Changing inequality in U.S. college entry and completion (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 17633). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17633.pdf
10. Baker, E,. (Ed.). (2010). The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
11. Bennett, S., Maton, K., &, Kervin, L., (2008). The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775-786. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
12. Bilal, D., (2000). Children's use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 (7), 646-665. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:7<646:AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-A
13. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H.I., &, Britt, M.A., (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (1), 6-28. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.44.1.1
14. Breaugh, J.A., (2003). Effect size estimation: Factors to consider and mistakes to avoid. Journal of Management, 29 (1), 79-97. doi: 10.1177/014920630302900106
15. Britt, M.A., &, Gabrys, G.L,. (2001). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the World Wide Web. In, C.R. Wolfe, (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web (pp. 73-90). San Diego, CA: Academic. doi: 10.1016/B978-012761891-3/50007-2
16. Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
17. Castek, J,. (2008). How do 4th and 5th grade students acquire the new literacies of online reading comprehension? Exploring the contexts that facilitate learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
18. Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, G., O'Byrne, I., &, Leu, D.J., (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: New opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties. In, C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, &, S. Gunn, (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 91-110). New York, NY: Springer.
19. Chall, J.S., (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
20. Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., &, Saez, E,. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. Retrieved from obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility-geo.pdf
21. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., &, Glaser, R., (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5 (2), 121-152. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0502-2
22. Cho, B.-Y,. (2010, December). A study of adolescents' constructive strategy use in a critical Internet reading task. Paper presented at the 60th annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Fort Worth, TX.
23. Cohen, J., (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Coiro, J., (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43 (4), 352-392. doi: 10.1177/1086296X11421979
25. 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. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
26. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., &, Leu, D.J., (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In, J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, &, D.J. Leu, (Eds.), The handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Congressional Budget Office. (2007). Trends in the distribution of household income between 1979 and 2007. Washington DC: Congress of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf
28. Connecticut State Board of Education. (2010). Connecticut Mastery Test fourth generation interpretive guide. Hartford: Author. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/curriculum/cali/2010cmtinterpretiveguidefinal.pdf
29. Connecticut State Department of Education. (2006). Research bulletin: District Reference Groups, 2006. Hartford, CT: Bureau of Research, Evaluation and Student Assessment. Retrieved from sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/Files/Pdf/Reports/db-drg-06-2006.pdf
30. Credit Suisse. (2013). Global wealth report 2013. Zurich, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=BCDB1364-A105-0560-1332EC9100FF5C83
31. Darling-Hammond, L., (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1047-1085. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00372.x
32. Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.E., &, Pearson, P.D., (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 239-264. doi: 10.3102/00346543061002239
33. Drew, S.V., (2012). Open up the ceiling on the Common Core State Standards: Preparing students for 21st-century literacy-now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (4), 321-330. doi: 10.1002/JAAL.00145
34. Eagleton, M., Guinee, K., &, Langlais, K., (2003). Teaching Internet literacy strategies: The hero inquiry project. Voices From the Middle, 10, 28-35.
35. Ericsson, K.A., &, Simon, H.A., (1999). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data Rev ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Fabos, B., (2008). The price of information: Critical literacy, education, and today's Internet. In, J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, &, D.J. Leu, (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 839-870). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
37. Foss, E,. (2014). Internet searching in children and adolescents: A longitudinal framework of youth search roles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
38. Gallego, M., &, Hollingsworth, S., (1992). Multiple literacies: Teachers' evolving perceptions. Language Arts, 69 (3), 206-213.
39. Gee, J.P., (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy 2nd ed. New York, NY: MacMillan.
40. Gewertz, C,. (2012, January 9). New details surface about common assessments. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/11/15assess.h31.html
41. Goldman, S.R., Braasch, J.L.G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A.C., &, Brodowinska, K., (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (4), 356-381. doi: 10.1002/rrq.027
42. Goldman, S.R., Wiley, J., &, Graesser, A.C,. (2005, April). Literacy in a knowledge society: Constructing meaning from multiple sources of information. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.
43. Graham, L., &, Metaxas, P.T., (2003). "Of course it's true; I saw it on the Internet!": Critical thinking in the Internet era. Communications of the ACM, 46 (5), 70-75. doi: 10.1145/769800.769804
44. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., &, Hughes, J., (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38 (4), 246-259. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671
45. Guinee, K., Eagleton, M.B., &, Hall, T.E., (2003). Adolescents' Internet search strategies: Drawing upon familiar cognitive paradigms when accessing electronic information sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29 (3), 363-374. doi: 10.2190/HD0A-N15L-RTFH-2DU8
46. 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.
47. Hatlevik, O.E., &, Gudmundsdottir, G.B., (2013). An emerging digital divide in urban school children's information literacy: Challenging equity in the Norwegian school system. First Monday, 18 (4),. doi: 10.5210/fm.v18i4.4232
48. Hendrawan, I., &, Wibowo, A,. (2011). The Connecticut Mastery Test: Technical report. Hartford: Connecticut State Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/student-assessment/research-and-technical/public-2010-cmt-tech-report.pdf
49. Henry, L.A., (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59 (7), 614-627. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.7.1
50. 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? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3282520
51. Hill, C.J., Bloom, H.S., Black, A.R., &, Lipsey, M.W., (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2 (3), 172-177. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x
52. Huey, E.B., (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading, with a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. New York, NY: Macmillan.
53. Jenkins, H., (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
54. Keene, E.O., &, Zimmermann, S., (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader's workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
55. Kendall, J., Ryan, S., Alpert, A., Richardson, A., &, Schwols, A,. (2012). State adoption of the Common Core State Standards: The 15 percent rule. Denver, CO: McREL. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544664.pdf
56. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., Marttunen, M., &, Leu, D.J., (2012). Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 44 (4), 448-483. doi: 10.1177/1086296X12457166
57. Kingsley, T., &, Tancock, S., (2014). Internet inquiry: Fundamental competencies for online comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 67 (5), 389-399. doi: 10.1002/rrq.1223
58. Kintsch, W., (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
59. Kist, W., (2005). New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in multiple media. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
60. Kress, G., (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
61. Kuiper, E., &, Volman, M., (2008). The Web as a source of information for students in K-12 education. In, J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, &, D.J. Leu, (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 241-246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Lankshear, C., &, Knobel, M., (2006). New literacies 2nd ed. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
63. 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, C. Lankshear, &, D.J. Leu, (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 267-296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. Leu, D.J. Jr, (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, &, R. Barr, (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Leu, D.J., Castek, J., &, Hartman, D,. (2006). Evaluating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning. Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/ncrel-files/FinalNCRELReport.pdf
66. Leu, D.J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J.M., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., &, Kennedy, C,. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with Common Core State Standards. In, S.B. Neuman, &, L.B. Gambrell, (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core Standards (pp. 219-236). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
67. Leu, D.J., Kiili, C., &, Forzani, E,. (in press). Individual differences in the new literacies of online research and comprehension. In, P. Afflerbach, (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Text and context. New York, NY: Routledge.
68. Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J.L., &, Cammack, D.W,. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In, R.B. Ruddell, &, N.J. Unrau, (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568-1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit-index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/leu
69. Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., &, Henry, L.A,. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In, D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, &, R.B. Ruddell, (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150-1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/books/IRA-710-chapter42.pdf
70. Leu, D.J., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., &, Coiro, J,. (2009 -2014). Assessing online reading comprehension: The ORCA Project. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
71. Leu, D.J., McVerry, J.G., O'Byrne, W.I., Kiili, C., &, Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo,..., Forzani, E., (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55 (1), 5-14. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.55.1.1
72. Leu, D.J., Slomp, D., Zawilinski, L., &, Corrigan, J,. (in press). Writing from a new literacy lens. In, C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, &, J. Fitzgerald, (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
73. Leu, D.J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B.C., Liu, Y., &, O'Neil, M,. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In, L.S. Rush, A.J. Eakle, &, A. Berger, (Eds.), Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practice (pp. 37-68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/docs/whats%20new%20about%20online%20reading%20comprehension.pdf
74. Lewis, C., &, Fabos, B., (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (4), 470-501. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.40.4.5
75. Mann, H,. (1855). Lectures on education. Boston, MA: W.B. Fowle and N. Capen.
76. Marsh, J., (2011). Young children's literacy practices in a virtual world: Establishing an online interaction order. Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (2), 101-118. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.46.2.1
77. McNamara, D.S., &, Kintsch, W., (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22 (3), 247-288. doi: 10.1080/01638539609544975
78. Members of the 2005 "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" Committee. (2011). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5: Condensed version. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
79. Minister of Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. (2006). A continuum model for literacy with ICT across the curriculum: A resource for developing computer literacy. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/tech/lict/resources/handbook/index.html
80. Missouri Department of Economic Development. (2014). Cost of living data series: First quarter 2014. Retrieved from http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost-of-living/index.stm
81. Mullis, I.V.S., &, Martin, M.O,. (Eds.). (2013). PIRLS 2016 assessment framework. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/framework.html
82. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Nation's Report Card: Science 2009 (NCES 2011-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2011451.pdf
83. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011a). Digest of education statistics: Table 168. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12-168.asp
84. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011b). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf
85. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011c). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf
86. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The Nation's Report Card: A first look: 2013 mathematics and reading (NCES 2014-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf
87. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
88. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
89. National Research Council (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
90. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2011). Digital nation: Expanding Internet usage. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia-internet-use-report-february-2011.pdf
91. Noss, A,. (2012). Household income: 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf
92. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Students on line: Reading and using digital information. Paris, France: Author.
93. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line: Digital technologies and performance (Volume VI), Paris, France: Author. doi: 10.1787/9789264112995-en
94. Passig, D., &, Maidel-Kravetsky, J,. (2014). The impact of collaborative online reading on summarizing skills. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10639-014-9337-5 Pew Research Center. (2012). Digital differences. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP-Digital-differences-041312.pdf
95. Pew Research Center. (2014). Internet user demographics [Table]. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Whos-Online.aspx
96. PIAAC Expert Group on Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments. (2009). PIAAC problem solving in technology-rich environments: A conceptual framework (OECD Education Working Paper No. 36). Paris, France: OECD. doi: 10.1787/220262483674
97. Piketty, T,. (2014). Capital in the 21st century (, A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
98. Prensky, M., (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1-6. doi: 10.1108/10748120110424816
99. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America's future: Prepublication version. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf
100. Reardon, S.F., (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In, G.J. Duncan, &, R.J. Murnane, (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children's life chances (pp. 91-115). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
101. Reardon, S.F., (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70 (8), 10-16.
102. Reardon, S.F., &, Galindo, C., (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46 (3), 853-891. doi: 10.3102/0002831209333184
103. Rouet, J.F., (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
104. Rouet, J.-F., Ros, C., Goumi, A., Macedo-Rouet, M., &, Dinet, J., (2011). The influence of surface and deep cues on primary and secondary school students' assessment of relevance in Web menus. Learning and Instruction, 21 (2), 205-219. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.007
105. Rutledge, T., &, Loh, C., (2004). Effect sizes and statistical testing in the determination of clinical significance in behavioral medicine research. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27 (2), 138-145. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2702-9
106. Sabatini, J., O'Reilly, T., Halderman, L.K., &, Bruce, K.M,. (2014, April). Developing theory-based literacy assessments for pre-K-12 students: Challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
107. Sanchez, C.A., Wiley, J., &, Goldman, S.R., (2006). Teaching students to evaluate source reliability during Internet research tasks. In, S.A. Barab, K.E. Hay, &, D.T. Hickey, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 662-666). Bloomington, IN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
108. Shanahan, T., &, Shanahan, C., (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32 (1), 7-18. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a
109. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., &, Griffin, P., (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
110. Street, B.V,. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. New York, NY: Pearson.
111. Street, B., (2003). What's "new" in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5 (2), 77-91.
112. Taboada, A., &, Guthrie, J.T., (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38 (1), 1-35. doi: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3801-1
113. Tierney, R.J., (2009). Shaping new literacies research: Extrapolations from a review of the. Handbook of Research on New Literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (3), 322-339. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.44.3.5
114. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Poverty thresholds by size of family and number of children [Table]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld
115. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
116. Voss, J.F., &, Silfies, L.N., (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14 (1), 45-68. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401-2
117. Wainer, H., Bradlow, E.T., &, Wang, X., (2007). Testlet response theory and its applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618765
118. Wallace, R.M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., &, Soloway, E., (2000). Science on the Web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (1), 75-104. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0901-5
119. Walraven, A., Brand-gruwel, S., &, Boshuizen, H.P.A., (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (3), 623-648. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.030
120. Willis, G.B,. (1999). Cognitive interviewing: A "how to" guide. Retrieved from appliedresearch.cancer.gov/areas/cognitive/interview.pdf
121. Wolfe, M.B.W., &, Goldman, S.R., (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (4), 467-502. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2304-2
122. Zhang, S., &, Duke, N.K., (2008). Strategies for Internet reading with different reading purposes: A descriptive study of twelve good Internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40 (1), 128-162. doi: 10.1080/10862960802070491