Vh‘ aw «v? z 55 . 193»: .I III. . v ...: .r . liaifin ‘ 11:15 .fl (2.;— ..:fi 2.3.4.. .1 3.9!. . 9.1 . {I‘D-n. .. CIA... b . n1 3.10555 LIBE‘ARY Mich; State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Online Reading Comprehension Strategies AMONG General and Special Education Elementary and Middle School Students presented by Hsin-Yuan Chen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education Ode/(fies £34145 Major Professor’s Signé’ture 8/91/02 / / Date MSU is an Afl'imwative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer .-—-—.—-—o--o- I--.--.--O-O-D-O-O-O-.-O-.-.-.-.-.-.-I-.-.-.‘0-0-0-C-.-.-.--.-.-.-O-.-.-C-I-.-I-.-.-.-0-.---.-.-.-—I-.-I-.- PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 KzlProilAccaPres/ClRC/DateDue.indd ONLINE READING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES AMONG GENERAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS By Hsin-Yuan Chen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education 2009 ABSTRACT ONLINE READING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES AMONG GENERAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS By Hsin-Yuan Chen According to government reports, new Internet technologies present readers with new reading opportunities and challenges (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; RAND Reading Study Group [RRSG], 2002). However, we are just beginning to understand the specific complexities that Internet text imposes on the read- ing comprehension process (Coiro, 2003; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004), and we know even less about what these complexities mean for particular student populations who are reading texts in a variety of online environments. The present study purposefully targeted the online reading strategies of upper-elementary and middle school students with and without learning disabilities (LD), in the US. and in Taiwan, as they read ex- pository text. Several aspects of the comprehension process were studied, including: (1) Internet navigation strategies and behaviors, (2) students’ sensitivity to the organizational structure of hypertexts, (3) online search strategies, and (4) online reading strategies. Data collection involved surveys, structured metacognitive interviews, observations, reading comprehension activities, and online search tasks that were administered to 119 American and Taiwanese students in the fifth and sixth grades. The results suggested that the fifih- and sixth-grade students in this study (1) had opportunities to use computers and use the Internet, but they were not taught sufficient online reading and search strategies; (2) were easily disorientated by the non-linear nature and unfamiliar structure of online texts, especially when Websites or Web pages lacked appropriate tabs or organizational cues for informational passages; (3) did not employ recommended online search strategies; and (4) had weak before-reading strategies, and had difficulty distinguishing before- and during-reading strategies, although their after- reading strategies were ofien advanced. The study findings suggested that: (1) students needed to be taught necessary online reading and search strategies, and (2) educators and instructional Website designers needed to be mindful of the characteristics of non-linear and unclearly structured text when designing Websites and hypermedia for upper- elementary and middle school students. Copyright by Hsin-Yuan Chen 2009 To my family ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is the result of four rewarding years of doctoral study at Michi- gan State University. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who have pro- vided support and encouragement during my Ph.D study. I first of all thank my commit- tee members. First and foremost, I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Carol Sue Englert, for her guidance and assistance in my research. Her great enthusiasm, work ethic, and in- sightful perspective are not only an inspiration but also a role model to me. I learned how to conduct research while involved in her ACCEL and ACCELerate projects. The re- search training and academic preparation I have received at Michigan State University is largely due to her and has helped me grow professionally. I thank my first-year academic advisor, Dr. Cynthia Okolo, for providing me the opportunity to enter this program with a scholarship and for being there to support me with her encouragement. Her scholarly nature and calm patience showed me how to do thorough empirical work, beginning with my first seminar course in the program. Special thanks go to Dr. Troy Mariage for serving on my committee and for being a research mentor during my Ph.D. career. I am grateful for his perceptive and insightful comments, which improved my dissertation and practicum research. His continuing willingness and care to help me go through the milestones of the program are deeply appreciated. I also want to thank Dr. Rand Spiro for his time and effort during my dissertation. He provided valuable advice on how to look at this research from a cognitive psychology point-of- view and helped me think in a conceptually clear manner. Furthermore, I want to give my sincere thanks to Dr. Charles Anderson for his generous support, gracious encouragement, vi and extensive training while I was involved in his Environmental Literacy research pro- ject. This science curriculum has broadened my research interests. Thanks also go to the College of Education and Graduate School at Michigan State University for supporting my work with a Dissertation Completion Fellowship, Summer Research Fellowship, Graduate Student Research Enhancement Award, and Dean’s Scholar Award. These generous scholarship and fellowship opportunities allowed me to carry out my research without worrying about my financial situation. Several principals, teachers, and school district officers in Michigan and Taiwan have contributed much to the completion of this dissertation research. In Michiagan, I would like to give particular thanks to Ms. Debbie Wagner at Eberwhite Elementary School, Mr. Dean Manikas at Hope Middle School, Ms. Naomi Zikmund-Fisher at Ann Arbor Open School, Ms. Patricia Rose at Slauson Middle School, and Dr. Nancy Shiffler at the Center of Testing, Accountability, and Research. In Taiwan, I would like to thank Mr. Chien-Erh Lai, Mr. Jun-Lung Yen, Ms. Yung-Chun Chuang, and Ms. Kui-Fang Yang at Zhongshan Elementary School; and Ms. Li-Chun Chen and Ms. Hsing-I Shen at SiouLang Elementary School. I much appreciate the support they gave to my research when I collected data at their schools. I would like to thank Rebecca Shankland for her friendship and support, espe- cially when I was in the early stage of this program as well as at my low moments. I also want to give thanks to my peers and colleagues: Carrie Anna Courtad, Lisa Dimling, Kimberly Wolbers, Nathan Jones, Emily Bouck, Yi-Chun Tsai, Catherine Wigent, Bar- bara Meier, Paula Hunt, Kathleen Kosobud, Ira Socol, and Kara Sevensma, for all sweet memories. vii In no particular order I would like to thank my friends at Michigan State Univer- sity: Anne Heintz, Rich Holdgreve-Resendez, Paul Morsink, Kathleen Moxley, Kosze Lee, Kuo-Liang Chang, Hsiu-Shuo Hu, Chueh-An Hsieh, Yun-Jia Lo, Shih-Pei Chang, Robyn Tasaka, Amy Tracy Wells, Hui J in, Jing Chen, Hamin Baek, Kennedy Onyancha, Edna Tan, Josie Zesaguli, Lindsey Mohan, and Jonathon Schramm. You all mean a lot to me. Special thanks go to my brothers and sisters at the Ann Arbor Chinese Christian Church for their care, sharing, and prayers over the years. May God bless them. Last but not least, I thank my family for their unconditional support and love. My parents’ and sister’s immeasurable encouragement and care were the wellspring of my motivation to walk through this dissertation process. They have always been there cheer- ing and comforting me. Lastly, I want to thank my loving husband, Meng-Ping Chang. Thanks for his endless love and emotional comfort. Without him, I would have faltered at many points during my doctoral study. Deservedly, this dissertation is dedicated to my family. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi INTRODUCTION - l Rationale .................................................................................................................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 6 Reading Comprehension Strategies in Traditional Informational Texts ................... 6 Online Reading Comprehension in Informational Texts ........................................ 31 Reading Comprehension in Print and Online Environments for Students with LD 49 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 56 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 58 METHOD 59 RESULTS 68 Quantitative findings ............................................................................................... 68 Qualitative findings ................................................................................................. 88 DISCUSSION ................ 109 CONCLUSION 125 APPENDICES 129 Appendix A. Group questionnaire about online reading comprehension strategies & information search ................................................................................................. 129 Appendix B. Individual online reading comprehension ........................................ 135 Appendix C. Individual online search-engine task ............................................... 137 Appendix D. Individual metacognitive interview about online reading strategies 138 Appendix E. Think-aloud practice (cited with permission from Dr. Laurie Henry (2003): ................................................................................................................... 139 Appendix F. Independent Samples T-tests from American and Taiwanese Fifth- and Sixth-Grade Students’ Survey Data ................................................................ 141 BIBLIOGRAPHY- - 150 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Reader’s Qualities and Abilities in Reading Activities ....................................... 12 Table 2. Summary of Research Findings for Reading Strategies of Print Texts ............... 15 Table 3. The description and keywords of text structures ................................................ 23 Table 4. Summary of Research Findings in Reading Strategies of Print and Electronic Texts .................................................................................................................. 42 Table 5. Participant information ....................................................................................... 59 Table 6. Definition of Variables for Individual Measure in Qualitative Analysis ............ 67 Table 7. Online Reading Comprehension With Different Organizational Structures ....... 82 Table 8. Online Search Strategies and Behaviors ............................................................. 82 Table 9. Online Search Strategies and Behaviors ............................................................. 96 Table 10. Online Reader Type ......................................................................................... 101 Table 11. Online pre-reading strategies of selected GE students and their grade-age peers with LD ........................................................................................................... 104 Table 12. The online during-reading strategies of selected GE students and their grade- age peers with LD ........................................................................................... 106 Table 13. The online post-reading strategies of selected GE students and their grade-age peers with LD ................................................................................................. 108 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The roles of reader, text, and context in the reading process and comprehension ............................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2. The “Loop” Diagram of Reading Comprehension Strategies ........................... 40 Figure 3. The overlap between comprehension strategies and processes used with print texts and those used with electronic texts. ........................................................ 40 Figure 4. When you read for fim, do you prefer to read print materials (books, newspapers) or read from a computer screen? ................................................. 70 Figure 5. Rate your understanding or skills to read & understand Print materials and materials on the Internet. ................................................................................. 72 Figure 6. Rate your understanding or skill to read & understand one Website with or without navigation tabs. .................................................................................. 74 Figure 7. Which of the following is the most useful to you in helping with your schoolwork? ..................................................................................................... 76 1:igure 8. How frequently do you use the INTERNET to read (e.g., news, blogs, Facebook, Websites, emails)? ............................................................................................ 77 Figure 9. How frequently do you use the INTERNET in searching for information? .. 78 Figure 10. What strategies will you use before you start reading on the Websites? ......... 85 Figure 11. What strategies will you use while you read the Website? .............................. 86 Figure 12. What strategies will you use after you finish reading the Website? ................ 87 Figure 13. Online Reader Types derived from from 25 Interviewed Students ............... 102 xi INTRODUCTION Comprehending what is read presents significant challenges for many students, in- eluding students with learning disabilities (LD). Explicit and highly structured reading skills are required, and so is the application of strategy knowledge in support of reading comprehension, no matter whether students are reading in a conventional print or online digital environment. Indeed, most learning that results from reading, both with print and online, depends on the ability to read and understand informational text. Also, reading skills need to be highly structured and yet flexible in the different environments in which students read. However, there are many questions that have yet to be answered: How likely is it that students with and without LD will employ reading strategies when they are exposed to informational passages? Do readers with different disability status employ different reading comprehension skills and strategies when they read online texts? How do different types of text structures help or hinder students’ reading in online environ- ments? What characteristics do hypertext readers have when they search for and locate information on the Internet? Emerging from these questions, the purpose of this study is to investigate the online reading strategies elementary and middle school students actu- ally use, with the larger goal of understanding how these students may optimize their reading comprehension with informational texts. Rationale A National Reading Agenda The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (United States Department of Education, 2002) requires students from all subgroups, including students with disabilities in Grades 3 through 8, to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) and reach proficient levels in mathe- matics and reading/language arts by the 2013-2014 school year. This means that reading will remain a primary subject in the school curriculum, and one of the most important academic skills and abilities that influence student learning across the curriculum. One national report shows that more than eight million struggling readers in grades 4— 12 in US. schools are not equipped with adequate literacy skills (NCES, 2003, 2007). Only 31% of fourth graders in 2004-2005 and 33% of fourth grade students in 2006-2007 scored at the proficient level in reading performance on the National Assessment of Edu- cational Progress (NAEP), which defines proficiency as “solid academic performance” (NCES, 2007). Conversely, nearly 70% of students entering the fifth grade scored below this level, which means that they had only attained “partial mastery” of grade-level skills (Loomis & Bourque, 2001, p. 2). Students who face difficulties in reading include students with learning disabili- ties (LD) who have been identified as having difficulties in literacy. They may have diffi- culty in reading words accurately; they may fail to comprehend what they read; they may lack the reading fluency needed to facilitate comprehension; or they may fail to use or acquire strategies to help them grasp the gist of a text, to recognize main ideas, to repair misinterpretations, and to change tactics based on the purpose of reading (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). Such students with LD may not know how to activate relevant strategies to comprehend the informational passages in a particular subject, and they may fail to gen- eralize the strategies they have learned in their reading or language arts class to the con- tent-area literacy tasks they encounter in science, social studies, or mathematics (Bian- carosa & Snow, 2004). In a nutshell, these students need to acquire the grade-level read- ing skills and strategies to support their reading comprehension performance, and they need specific instruction that will help them generalize their strategy knowledge to the content areas of the informational curriculum. Reading Strategies Pressley and Afflerbach in 1995 (see also Gildroy & Deshler, 2006; Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997) examined all extant think-aloud-based studies of reading and concluded that expert readers of print-based text actively employ reading strategies to increase their reading comprehension performance. Pressley (2000) pointed out that pro- ficient readers know when and how to use a variety of comprehension strategies in differ- ent stages of reading, such as before, during, and after reading. The use of before, during, and after reading strategies has been shown to enhance readers’ comprehension (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996) and recall from informational text (Anderson & Roit, 1993; Bereiter & Bird, 1985; Lytle, 1982; Pressley et al., 1992). Further, strategic readers set up reading purposes and actively engage in what is being read (Stahl & Vancil, 1986; Steffensen, Goetz, & Cheng, 1999), as well as attend to text organization and struc- ture (Anderson & Armbruster, 1984; Meyer & Rice, 1984). The prevailing literature has focused on print-based reading studies. Consequently, much less is known about how students use comprehension strategies in online reading environments (see Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Kamil & Intrator, 1998; Leu, 2000, 2002; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Reinking, 1998). Most of the research on online read- ing has focused on adults or college students (Lawless, Mills, & Brown, 2003), but there is little empirical data on the performance of adolescents (Coiro & Dobler, 2007) or up- per-elementary school students. Of interest in this research is the nature of students’ read- ing processes and their cognitive strategies in non-linear online environments (Balcytiene, 1999), especially in reading and interpreting online informational (expository) passages. Online Reading Comprehension The Internet has transformed the nature of literacy learning, opening up virtually unlimited opportunities for users to further their academic knowledge, economic oppor- tunities, and information circulation (Educational Testing Service, 2003; U. S. Depart- ment of Commerce, 2002). Most public schools in the United States provide their stu- dents with access to the Internet (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002, 2003). In fact, Internet technologies have become a part of school children’s daily lives, especially in the area of informational texts (Lebo, 2003). With its increasing capacity for access to online information (i.e., enriched hyper- text, hypermedia, and multimedia), the Internet provides abundant resources and oppor- tunities for students, and presents challenges for literacy educators (Spires & Estes, 2002). If students are to take full advantage of the informational possibilities afforded by the In- ternet, then it is essential to develop their digital literacy skills and strategies. According to government reports, new Internet skills are involved because Internet texts pose new reading challenges (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000; RAND Reading Study Group [RRSG], 2002). For example, learners have to find solutions or make decisions about the suitability or usefulness of particular webpages from among the thousands listed on a search engine results page. They need new skills to face this new challenge (i.e., key word searching, selection, or organization) that will help them to manage these rich information resources as part of a learner-driven process involving investigation, research inquiry, and synthesizing meaning from many sources of data. Learning becomes a real time exploration of dynamic world issues based on personal inquiry goals. However, in comparison with research involving conventional print text, there is scarce empirical work to support the claim that hypertext poses additional complexities in the reading comprehension process (Coiro, 2003; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004). In a meta-analysis study of 80 research articles that focused on comprehension and tech- nology, only three of these studies focused on the Internet (Coiro, Leu, Kinzer, Labbo, & Teale, 2003). This gap in the research literature means that many educators may not be equipping their students with the comprehension skills and strategies they need to take full advantage of the opportunities for lifelong learning and reading that are available through the Internet. The purpose of this research is to examine elementary and middle school students’ strategy use in reading comprehension and performance as they read hy- pertexts on the Internet. LITERATURE REVIEW The research described in this dissertation draws on three complementary concep- tual frameworks. The first section of the literature review will focus on the informational reading comprehension strategies involved in reading conventional text. Two theoretical principles of reading processes and comprehension will frame the first section, including the literatures on cognitive theory and sociocultural theory. Within this section, the roles of texts, readers, and context in the reading comprehension process will be reviewed and discussed. In the second section, online reading comprehension strategies will be reviewed, drawing on two theoretical frames: cognitive flexibility theory and new digital literacies. This section will explore the differences and similarities that exist between traditional print texts and hypertexts, as well as between readers of print and online readers in terms of their reading comprehension processes and strategy use. In the third section, of special interest to the current research, the reading problems that students with learning disabilities face will be presented. The first part of this section will focus on the problems or difficulties that students with LD experience with tradi- tional print passages. The concluding part then will highlight the need to explore the on- line reading comprehension strategies used by students with and without learning dis- abilities. Reading Comprehension Strategies in Traditional Informational Texts Reading comprehension includes several elements that allow readers to simultane- ously process, extract, and construct meaning through written language (RAND Reading Study Group [RRSG], 2002, p. 11). Many researchers agree that the three elements inter- act to influence the reading comprehension process, and that this process is further influ- enced by factors associated with the reader, text, and context (e.g., Paris, Wasik, & Turn- er, 1991; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; RRSG, 2002). The skilled reader applies a broad range of processes and strategies designed to construct meaning. This skilled reader draws on and elaborates on the full range of proc- esses and strategies related to the reader’s prior knowledge and reading dispositions (e.g., vocabulary knowledge, decoding skills, meaning-making strategies) that help the reader to access and assign meaning to the text. In addition to reader-based factors, there are specific features of the text that influence the comprehension performance. For example, the reader’s knowledge of common text structures influences the reader’s literacy per- formance, including the reader’s knowledge of narrative sub-genres (e.g., short story, autobiography, novel, etc.) and expository sub-genres (e.g., descriptive, persuasive, ana- lytical, or procedural texts) and their respective text structures (Applebee, 2000; Englert, Mariage, Okolo et al., in press; Ogle & Blachowicz, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). Finally, the reader and text interact in a broader sociocultural context, which entails learn- ing and reading in a sociocultural environment that involves cultural tools and social agents. Figure 1 presents a visual representation of this literacy model, which is further explained in the following sections. Reader Reading Process & Comprehension Figure l. The roles of reader, text, and context in the reading process and comprehension The Text, Reader, & Context in Reading Comprehension The reader. “Comprehension” can be broadly defined as “the process of simultane- ously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language” (RAND Reading Study Group [RRSG], 2002, p. 11). It encompasses a wide variety of skills and strategies, especially when comprehension entails reading. The central element of reading comprehension is a reader’s ability to get the gist, point, or main ideas from a text (Pearson & Johnston, 1978; Williams, 2003). Without an ability to understand the meaning of a text, the reader is not able to make inferences, compare dif- ferences within and across the sections of a text, or engage in critical thinking about the textual ideas. When processing a print text, the reader’s prior knowledge plays a central role in the reading comprehension process (Carlisle & Rice, 2004; Duke, Pressley, & Hilden, 2004). For example, the reader has to make sense of the words based on what is already known (Goodman, 1967; Smith, 1971). Consequently, reading comprehension is influenced by the reader’s knowledge of the reading topics and his/her familiarity with the central con- cepts of a passage. Prior knowledge helps the reader to predict words and particular types of information, and this knowledge in turn helps the reader to monitor the comprehension process (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). In addition, the reader uses prior knowledge to query the ideas in the text, ask questions, make inferences, construct meanings and im- ages, and summarize what has been read in the text (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). These procedural actions that the reader takes are called “strategies,” and prior knowledge in- fluences the reader’s employment of sense-making strategies in the planning and moni- toring stages of the comprehension process. Besides prior knowledge, some researchers also believe that reading comprehen- sion is related to word recognition (e.g., word identification or decoding), which includes the reader’s automaticity in identifying words and overall fluency in reading (Gough, HOOVCI', & Peterson, 1996). It is ofien assumed that once a reader is fluent, s/he will comprehend what is read. However, many researchers (i.e., Barnes, Faulkner, & Dennis, 200 l ; Buly & Valencia, 2002; Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003) have proven that even students who can read and recognize words on tests and in their textbooks can fail to comprehend. In one study of more than 400 children in a summer reading program, researchers found that there was no correlation between students’ fluency in word recognition and their re- Sporinses to a series of comprehension questions (Paris, Carpenter, Paris, & Hamilton, 2005 ). Other studies have corroborated the finding that oral reading fluency becomes more dissociated from comprehension after grade 3 (Kranzler, Miller, & Jordan, 1999; Paris, Carpenter, Paris, & Hamilton, 2005; Stahl & Hiebert, 2006). These studies suggest that oral reading-rate assessments do not accurately measure or predict the comprehen- sion performance of older students (Pressley & Hilden, 2005). In other words, lack of oral reading fluency correlates strongly with lack of comprehension among novice read- ers, but among experienced readers this correlation between fluency and comprehension doe s not exist (Paris, Carpenter, Paris, & Hamilton, in press). Another explanation for the lack of correlation between word reading fluency and comprehension might be that readers’ cognitive resources are finite and that the resources they can commit to performing the reading process are limited. When readers expend a large proportion of their attention to low-level processes such as word recognition, they do not have additional resources to devote to the comprehension process. For these read- ers, the cognitive load imposed by the lower-level processes hinders the executive func- tions that would allow them to monitor the higher-level processes of comprehension (La- Berge & Samuels, 1974). In this way, reader-based factors strongly impinge on reading Comprehension. And as reader-based factors interact with the comprehension process, they are, in turn, supplemented or inhibited by other specific features associated with Vari OUS aspects of the reader, text, and context. A skilled reader also brings many abilities and characteristics to the reading activity. These characteristics involve critical thinking skills and dispositions, including the ability and inclination to analyze what has been read, interpret the meaning of the text, gather information from multiple sources, and solve confusing points while reading. A good read er must understand the purposes and goals for reading, how to achieve those reading goal S, how to adjust the reading path, and what strategies to apply to maintain good com- 10 prehension. Altogether these abilities encapsulate at least three reader-based aspects of reading comprehension: metacognitive knowledge, self-regulation, and motivational be- liefs (Borkowski & Burke, 1996; Dickson, Collins, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1998; Paris er; al.,1991). Metacognitive knowledge refers to when the reader has conscious knowledge of what is expected and what strategies to use to find a solution or a way forward. Metacog- nitive knowledge includes declarative knowledge (knowing what strategies to employ), procedural knowledge (how to employ the strategies), and conditional knowledge (know- ing when and why the strategies should be employed) (Anderson, 1993; Enns, 1993; Paris, Lipson and Wixson, 1983; Smith and Ragan, 1999). Metacognitive knowledge is necessary for the reader to self-direct, self-monitor, and self-regulate reading perform- ance, all of which are associated with the readers’ executive control of the reading proc- 6SS and functions. When readers can employ strategies and understand the benefits of us- ing particular strategies, they typically have higher motivational beliefs and self-efficacy (Westby, 2004). The following paragraphs and Table 1 further explain the three compo- nents of successful reading. 11 Table l. Reader’s Qualities and Abilities in Reading Activities Component Type of Knowledge Characteristic Metacognitive Knowledge of thinking Is the material too easy (or hard)? Knowledge Knowledge of different tasks Which subjects or topics are inter- Knowledge of strategies esting? ‘ Knowledge of resources What kind of testing formats will Knowledge of expected out- show up in the exams? comes What strategies or resource materi- als are used for comprehension or testing questions? S elf- Coordinate metacognitive How do I read this task? First, sec- Regulation knowledge ond, next. . .? Set up realistic reading goals How do I know if I understand the Monitor reading progress and text? comprehension What difficulties prevent under- Remediate reading confusions standing in this text? or failures What actions should be taken to Appreciate reading results comprehend the task? Motivational Competency, ability Do I have the ability to handle the B eliefs Belief, value reading task? Interest How do I explain this failure or Attitude success? Do I believe the reading strategy is worthy? Metacognition consists of three components. The first component of metacognition Was defined by F lavell (1976) as “one’s cognition knowledge concerning one’s own cog- nitive processes and products or anything related to them” (p. 232). The cognitive knowl- edge implicit in that definition refers to one’s conscious awareness or knowledge of thinking, including knowledge of different tasks, knowledge of strategies, and knowledge of expected outcomes (Flavell, 1979). For example, the reader with metacognitive ktl()\>-vledge knows if the material is easy or hard; which subjects or topics are interesting; What kind of testing formats will show up in the exams, and how to comprehend or an- s " U er testing questions by selecting various strategies or acquiring resource materials. A 12 good reader also intentionally performs cognitive processes and metacognitive strategies to influence learning and cognition (Mayer, 2001), such as using a rehearsal strategy to memorize a paragraph through cognitive processes, or applying a representational strat- egy (i.e., map, notes) to comprehend a passage. The application of cognitive processes and metacognitive strategies helps the reader enhance reading comprehension and leam- in g performance. The second metacognitive component consists of executive functioning, or self- regulation. This component first appeared in Brown’s (1980) descriptive study of reader- controlled strategies. The strategies identified by Brown (1980) included text selection, comprehension monitoring, corrective actions in the comprehension process, structure cues retrieval, and testing readiness estimation. Self-regulation may also be influenced by other personal variables, like self-concept (i.e., self-esteem, self-efficacy) or personal sentiments (i.e., anxiety, excitement, interest) (Westby, 2004). At the highest level, the self—regulated reader sets up realistic reading goals, monitors his/her progress, and appre- Ciates the results. The reader may also regulate his/her knowledge-seeking process and 3" a1 uate his/her strategy use to ensure the comprehension of texts, in the present and also in tltne future (Mosenthal & Kirsch, 1991; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1994). The final component comprises motivation and motivational beliefs. Researchers believe that motivational and affective variables are also key elements that influence the cognitive reading processes and comprehension (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997). These motivational and affective variables include beliefs, values, per- SpeCtives, perceptions, goals, interests, and attitudes that can affect strategy use with in- fortnational texts (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995; Guthrie & Alvermann, 1999; Homer & l3 Shewry, 2002; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). These motivational beliefs may in- fluence the reader’s self-regulation and motivation in studying or searching for informa- tion. For example, the reader may only work for tangible rewards, rather than because of personal interest in or curiosity about the knowledge being sought. Such a reader may be qui ckly frustrated or anxious because of the external consequences. The focus on external factors will likely affect reading comprehension because the reader may not focus suffi- ciently on his/her reading goals, the features of the text, or the details that were read (W estby, 2004). How does a good reader apply strategies when reading? What underlies the reader’s metacognition, motivation, and executive functioning to assist reading? Researchers have shown that a good reader is usually a self-regulated learner who is intrinsically motivated; he/She reads for interest in or curiosity about knowledge and learning, not because of the exterior awards (Guthrie & Knowles, 2001). This reader sets up his personal goals before engaging in reading to get the gist and meaning. In addition, this kind of reader is usually a good comprehender who skillfully and effectively applies metacognitive strategies as t001 s to aid reading comprehension to a greater degree than a poor reader (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley, 2002; Tierney & Cunningham, 1 984). The use of the strategies will aid the learning of reading comprehension skills, Word recognition, and phonological decoding skills (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, & Bryk, l 994; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988; Vellutino & Scanlon, in press). Furthermore, the expert reader is active in applying a wide range of reading strate- gies and processes that are suitable for the different phases of reading, including before, during, and after reading (Pressley, 2002; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Pressley & Whar- 14 ton-McDonald, 1997). These sub-processes help the reader remain actively involved in reading and interpreting the text to increase his/her reading comprehension. The left part of 'Table 2 illustrates these sub-processes of reading, and the right column indicates the reading strategies employed by the expert reader during each sub-process. Table 2. Summary of Research Findings for Reading Strategies of Print Texts Expert-Level Print Reading Strategies p—a O B efore Sets a purpose and goals for reading (e.g., to study, for entertainment) Previews the text (e.g., title, introduction, headings, pictures/graphics, captions, summary, questions) Plans how to read the text (e.g., front to back, or specific sections) 3" Thinks about what is already known about the topics Anticipates and utilize text structures Asks questions and seek answers Predicts, confirms, or modifies predictions Identifies important information and details Relates important points across the text Paraphrases and summarizes as a means to remember what was read Infers, adds missing details, makes associations Visualizes what is described 0. Monitors comprehension 1. Mends breakdowns in comprehension (e.g., re-reads, uses the glossary, consults graphics) During ""'".‘°.°°>'.°‘.‘"P':’°!"t" S" Afier Summarizes Reflects Synthesizes Writes PPPT‘ Before-reading strategies enable the reader to assess prior knowledge, define r e"Ellciing purpose, make predictions about the topic, and survey the material (Pressley, 2002; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997). For example, the reader may set up a goal to learn the material in depth, recall main ideas for a test, or 100k for specific information. Thus, the reader may skim or look through the text to get a 15 sense of the topics, its organizational structure, and the main parts to see if the text will meet his/her reading purpose. When surveying the text, the reader may also need to acti- vate prior knowledge related to the text in order to make predictions or construct hy- potheses about the covered topics. Through “text preview,” the reader is motivated to read for understanding (Graves, Prenn, & Cooke, 1985; Graves et al., 2001). During-reading strategies are employed by the reader to comprehend the impor- tant textual ideas, to monitor comprehension performance, and to make corresponding adj ustments. The strategies employed by the reader while reading include utilizing text structures, asking questions and seeking answers, confirming or modifying predictions, identifying important information, relating important points across the text, paraphrasing and summarizing to remember what is read, inferring, and monitoring comprehension (Gildroy & Deshler, 2006; Pressley, 2002; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997). The reader may first skim some parts and focus on specific tOpics; then, re-read some sections to more deeply process the main ideas and details, or annotate the text by highlighting, note-taking, or coding the ideas through symbol- marking (Englert et al., in press). The good reader also makes inferences, interprets me«Earrings, changes hypotheses, and pays attention to the causal relations implied in the teXt or author’s intention. These strategies help the reader fill in the gaps of the text, make In'E=£1nings more sensible, and increase the coherence of understanding from text (Duke et a1 2004; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). In addition, a good comprehender employs self- I”fitglllation during this sub-process (Westby, 2004). For example, the self-regulated reader may look back or jump ahead for clarification on a point that was confusing; the reader may read slowly when pondering specific points that relate to the reading goals; the 16 reader may also try to solve the inconsistency because the reader expects a text to be con- sistent and coherent. Throughout reading, the good reader is very active in monitoring his text comprehension (e.g., relevance to reading goal, attention maintenance), in applying fix—up strategies when comprehension performance has been compromised, and evaluat— in g the text information (creditability of the sources, quality of the passage). After-reading strategies include the reader’s interpretation or reaction to what is read while refining critical thinking skills. These strategies include summarizing, reflect- in g, synthesizing, interpreting, representing, and then integrating all of the above strate- gies within the reading or inquiry process (Pressley, 2002; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Pre ssley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997). For example, the reader may reflect on ideas in the text, construct summaries based on what is read, consider confusing points, and check the coherence of the text. The reader may further interpret the meanings fiom the text that earn be applied in the future as part of a reading-to-learn or writing-to-leam effort (Pressley, 2002). The use of the before, during, and after reading strategies can result in increased cc>t‘ljprehension, especially when the reader is reading independently (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996). The expert reader of informational texts is no exception to thi S general rule. Such a reader must be strategic and employ a range of strategies when engaged in reading informational text (Anderson & Roit, 1993; Bereiter & Bird, 1985; L‘3’tl e, 1982; Pressley et al., 1992): knowing what the strategies are (declarative knowl- edg e), developing procedures for employing strategies (procedural knowledge), and mak- ing decisions about the right time to use the appropriate strategies (conditional knowl- eclge). The strategic reader of informational text is purposeful and actively engaged in 17 what is read (Stahl & Vancil, 1986; Steffensen, Goetz, & Cheng, 1999), and also attends to the text organization and structure (Anderson & Armbruster, 1984; Meyer & Rice, 1984). These reading strategies help scaffold students’ interactions with texts. In the next section, the specific features of texts are discussed. The text. Broadly, text designates any print or electronic text which plays a cen- tral role in the comprehension process, and which requires that the reader construct repre- sentations from the text (RRSG, 2002, p. 14). No matter whether texts are printed or dis- played electronically, they usually belong to one of two textual types: informational (ex- pository) and narrative texts. These two genres are distinct in structure, content, and in— tent (Armbruster, 1984; Duke, 2000). In narrative texts, a successful reader knows that the story structure includes the story setting, characters, a sequence of events or actions, a climax, resolution, and conclusion (Fitzgerald, 1984; Mandler & Johnson, 1977). In in— formational texts, a skilled reader seeks the expository text structure and attends to the structural cues to identify the important ideas based on the reader’s purpose. The reader’s expectations and predictions guide the meaning-making and comprehension process (Duke et al., 2004) when engaged with expository text while reading. In this present study, informational texts will be the primary focus, and they are used to examine stu- dents’ reading comprehension and strategy application as they read on the Internet. Students have many opportunities to work with informational materials, such as in (science and social studies, especially when they enter the fourth grades and up (Wilson & Rupley, 1997). At the same time, research studies and reports show that young readers usually experience more difficulty and face greater challenges in reading informational passages than in reading narrative texts (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Zabrucky & Ratner, 18 1992) because with an informational passage the reader has to simultaneously process several tasks, such as defining purposes, searching for related information, connecting to background knowledge, and synthesizing multiple soures of information within and be- tween texts (Dreher, 2002; Hartman, 1995; Kristeva, 1986; Spivey & King, 1989). Fur- thermore, expository texts often contains unfamiliar content (Kucan & Beck, 1997) and technical vocabulary, and communicate abstract principles about expository concepts, which means that students have to employ more effective cognitive routines to organize, synthesize, interpret, or summarize the content (Lapp, Flood, & Ranck-Buhr, 1995). To complicate matters further, informational texts may simultaneously be comprised of a variety of text structures (i.e., compare and contrast, cause and eflect, problem and solu- tion) (Kucan & Beck, 1997), rendering the expository information more difficult and re- mote for the readers to access, organize, and to comprehend. Infrequent exposure to expository texts is another factor that has a negative im- pact on the performance of upper-elementary students. Elementary students receive less exposure to informational than to narrative texts (Duke, 1998; Olinghouse, 2007; Stein & Trabasso 1982; Winograd & Bridge, 1986) which results in inadequate knowledge about informational genres, as revealed by reading and writing assessments (Chen & Englert, submitted; De La Paz, 1997; Hidi & Hildyard, 1983; Olinghouse, 2007; Pelligrini, Galda, & Rubin, 1984; Winograd & Bridge, 1986). Several studies have indicated that students display better-developed skills, and exhibit greater performance gains in reading and writing narratives than in reading and writing informational texts (Applebee, 2000; Englert et al., in press; Ogle & Blachowicz, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). This may explain the achievement slump that researchers have observed in the fourth grade 19 when instructional emphasis on the independent comprehension and composition of ex- pository texts increases at the same time that instruction in expository comprehension and composition processes remains generally sparse (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). The inadequate attention to exposition is unwarranted because informational texts reliably exhibit text structures and other features that can be described and taught. Text structure refers to the semantic and syntactic arrangement of ideas that are organized in particular ways to address specific purposes (Englert et al., in press; Vaughn & Klingner, 2004). The common text structures underlying informational text include: (1) cause and effect (reasons, causes, and effects), (2) compare and contrast (e.g., the similarities and differences between two or more people, animals, events, objects, settings, or topics), (3) problem and solution (statement of a problem and the presentation of solution), (4) or- der/sequence (timeline, chronological account, or steps: events in a sequence from begin- ning to end, typically signaled by keywords such as first, then, next, and finally, as well as specific dates and times), and (5) categories and details (e.g., classifications, enumera- tions or taxonomies consisting of hierarchical relationships among ideas that correspond to superordinate and subordinate ideas (Anderson & Armbruster, 1984; Englert et al., 2006, 2007, in press; Englert & Thomas, 1987; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Meyer, 1975; Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980; Meyer & Freedle, 1984; Vaughn & Kling- ner, 2004; Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). The five text structures are further defined as follows (see Table 3): 1. Cause and eflect: a text structure tells the results of an event or occurrence and the reasons why it happened. Example: The cheetah is endangered. Why? 20 There are several causes that lead to this result/effect. First, they suffered from inbreeding. Second, they had high infant morality. Third, they lost habitat. 2. Compare and contrast: a text structure that compares the similarities and dif- ferences between two or more people, animals, events, objects, settings, or topics. Example: Although the cheetah is the oldest of the world’s big cats, unlike other cats, the cheetah has a leaner body and longer legs. It is the only eat with short, blunt semi-retractable claws. Cheetahs’ paws are less rounded than other cats’, and their pads are hard, similar to tire treads. 3. Problem and solution: a text structure that states a problem and then presents a solution. Example: How can we protect the cheetah from extinction? Only human actions can save them. Farmers need to be more tolerant of cheetahs and should not kill any of them. 4. Order/sequence: a text structure that sequences events from beginning to end (specific dates and times might be mentioned); a text structure that orders steps in a process or in a series of events. Example: At the beginning of the 19903, the total cheetah population was estimated to be 100,000. Today the population is between 12,000 and 15,000. 5. Categories and details: a text structure that categorizes objects in some taxon- omy according to related details; items are put into categories or into some other system of classification. Example: The cheetah is in the family Felidae. It is the oldest of the world’s big cats. It existed 4,000,000 years ago. It is also the world’s fastest land animal. It can reach speeds of 70 mph. 21 Each text structure provides keywords that signal the location of answers to spe- cific kinds of questions (see Table 3). For example, the compare/contrast structure ad- dresses questions such as “What two things are being compared?” “How are they alike?” and “How are they different?” (Anderson & Armbruster, 1984; Englert & Thomas, 1987; Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980); the cause-eflect structure suggests questions such as “What are the causes and effects of this event?” “What is the critical event?” “What caused the event?” “What are the effects?” and “What might happen next?” (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980); the problem-solution structure focuses on the answers to questions such as “What is the problem?” “What are the possible solu- tions?” “Which solution is best?” and “How will you implement this solution?” (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Meyer & Freedle, 1984). Table 3 provides more specific information about the types of questions occasioned by different text structures, and the keywords that signal the location of textual information. 22 Table 3. The description and keywords of text structures Text Structure Description Keywords Cause-Effect The result of an event or occur- consequently, therefore, as a Structure rence and the reasons it happened. result, thereby, this leads to What are the causes and effects Example: The cheetah is endan- of this event? What is the criti- gered. Why? First, they suffered cal event? What caused the from inbreeding. Second, they suf- event? What are the effects? fered from high infant morality. What might happen next? Third, they lost habitat. Comparison/ The similarities and differences however, unlike, like, by con- Contrast Struc- between two or more people, ani- trast, yet, in comparison, al- ture mals, events, objects, settings, or though, whereas, similar to, topics. diflerentfi'om Example: Unlike other cats, the What is different or alike be- cheetah has a leaner body and tween the two through com- longer legs. It is the only eat with parison and contrast? What short, blunt semi-retractable claws. qualities of each thing corre- Cheetahs’ paws are less rounded spond to one another? What than other cats’, and their pads are two things are being com- hard, similar to tire treads. pared? How are they alike? How are they different? Problem- Statement of a problem and then problem, question, solution, Solution Struc- presentation of solution answer ture Example: How should we protect What is the problem? What are the cheetah from extinction? Only the possible solutions? Which human actions can save them. solution is best? How will you Farmers need to be more tolerant implement this solution? of cheetahs and should not kill any ~ of them. Order/Sequence Events in a sequence from begin- next, first, last, second, an- Structure ning to end (dates and times might other, then, additionally (ti meline, be mentioned); the order or steps in Chronological a process or series of events. In what order did these events sequence, or steps) Example: At the beginning of the 19905, the total cheetah population was estimated to be 100,000. To- day the population is between 12,000 and 15,000. occur? What are the proce- dures of this occurrence? When did it happen? 23 Table 3. Continued Categories- Details Struc- ture (enumera- tion, taxonomy, classification) 01‘ L i st Structure Objects are categorized in some taxonomy according to related de- tails; items are put into catego- ries/organization/classification Example: The cheetah is in the family Felidae. It is the oldest of the world’s big cats. It existed 4,000,000 years ago. It is also the world’s fastest land animal. It can reach speeds of 70 mph. categories, classification, or- ganization, groups, chunks, main ideas, details What is the main idea of this passage? What category does it belong to? What are its details? The passage is organized as an out- line or list. Each section begins with a main idea, and then elabo- rates with subsections/details. Example: The cheetah is threatened with extinction for the following reasons. First, they suffered from inbreeding. Second, they experi- enced high infant morality. Third, they lost their habitat. as following/below, for exam- ple, for instance, specifically, in particular, in addition What is the topic/main idea of this outline? What are the sub- sections/details? Why are these details grouped together? Text structure is associated with reading comprehension performance (Bakken, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 1997; Englert & Hiebert, 1984). A well-structured text presents information in a clear and logical order, which makes it easier for readers to predict and identify the textual elements that satisfy the structural requirements of the expository text StI'ucture. In turn, the reader’s ability to apply knowledge about text structures in the read- ing process is associated with boosts in the reader’s recall and comprehension since the text structure elements can be stored and retrieved based on organized networks that Specify meaningful chunks and relationships (Baker & Brown, 1984; Pearson & Dole, 1987; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). Taylor and Samuels (1983), for example, 24 found that fifih- and sixth-grade “good” readers1 who made greater use of their text struc- ture knowledge recalled more central information from well-organized expository pas- sages than “poor” comprehenders at the same grade level. On the other hand, the text re- call of the “good” and “poor” comprehenders was similar when they were given ran- domly organized passages because neither group could take advantage of the text struc- ture. The differential performance of “good” and “poor” comprehenders suggested that the ability to use text organization had a significant impact on comprehension perform- ance, because it permitted “good” readers to remember more chunks of organized ideas than the “poor” readers who tended to remember facts as though they were isolated and discrete. Similarly, McGee (1982) identified a similar relationship in a study with fifth- grade readers. In her research, she found that skilled readers recalled more main points that corresponded to the hierarchical ideas in an expository passage than the same-aged “poor” readers. Clearly, young readers’ knowledge of text structure influenced the extent and organization of their comprehension performance and retellings. Despite the fact that knowledge of text structure provides an important organiza- tional framework for reading comprehension, text structure knowledge must be flexibly employed by students in the reading process. Many informational chapters include more than one text structure, which requires that readers navigate the shift in meanings as the texts flow seamlessly and dynamically from one text structure to the next. For example, When reading a chapter from a history textbook, students may need to identify multiple text structures. They may need to compare and contrast the causes and eflects of a world war, for example, or identify a sequence or timeline of the events in the war, or describe 1 Good students were defined as identified as reading on or above grade level as indicated by teacher JUdgment and placement in the basal reading series used in the school. 25 the events that caused or resulted from the war. This might explain why the proficient reader who is sensitive to each text structure and uses these structures is more adept at building “internal connections” or making “logical connections among ideas from the text” and demonstrates greater literal and inferential comprehension (Mayer, 1984, p. 32). Likewise good readers who are aware of text structure can more successfully identify, reassemble, and synthesize information from different sources or from different locations in the text to address different interpretive questions, goals, or purposes. As an example, good readers know how to select and extract the necessary information to address ques- tions requiring interpretation based upon compare/contrast, problem/solution, sequence, or enumeration text structures. Several major findings emerge from the research reports and empirical literature that illuminate the relationship between readers’ knowledge of text structure and their ability to apply effective reading strategies. The available research shows that text struc- ture knowledge is developmentally acquired and can be used to distinguish readers with different performance levels of reading comprehension. Also, some text structures are easier to recognize and comprehend. These main findings are further explained in the fol- lowing paragraphs. First, the findings suggest that a reader’s knowledge of text structure is develop- mentally acquired. Englert and her colleagues (1988) examined the differential text struc- ture skills in reading and writing of learning disabled students and their regular class classmates. The results revealed that upper-grade students had a more developed knowl- edge of and sensitivity to text structure to guide them through the writing process. For example, upper-grade children could use initial text information to fill out appropriate 26 details from the text or their own prior knowledge. However, lower-grade students lacked such sensitivity to text structure, which then affected their ability to read and write coher- ent prose. These findings are also supported by the findings emanating from other re- search studies (Brown & Smiley, 1977; Brown, Smiley, & Lawton, 1978; Danner, 1976; Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Englert, Stewart, & Hiebert, 1988). Second, awareness of text structure is differently developed by students with dis- abilities who exhibit different performance profiles. For example, students with LD have little awareness of text structures, which hinders their comprehension (Taylor & Williams, 1983). They cannot distinguish between important and unimportant ideas and have diffi- culties generating reasonable questions or hypotheses based on the text, as compared to their non-disabled peers (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Wilson & Rupley, 1997). Also, they do not develop expectations or predictions regarding the related details that follow a given text structure; nor do they look back to the initial text information to confirm the relationship between the text statement and its supporting details (Englert, Stewart, & Hiebert, 1988). Third, some text structures are more obvious and easier to comprehend than oth- ers. Meyer and Freedle (1984) conducted a research study to examine the relationship between different text structures and students’ recall. They found that high-ability stu- dents performed better on the compare-contrast and enumeration than low-ability stu- dents. In Englert and Hiebert’s (1984) study, they found that third- and sixth-grade stu- dents comprehended and recognized the textual elements of the sequence and enumera- tion text structure to a greater degree than the compare-contrast and description. In an- other study by Englert and Thomas (1987), students were also more successful in apply- 27 ing the sequence text structure in predicting ideas from the text, and least successful with the compare-contrast structure. A study by Richgels, McGee, & Lomax et a1. (1987) sug- gested that students were more capable of dealing with the compare-contrast than the cause-eflect structure. Together these findings lead to the conclusion that the sequence text structure is easier than the compare-contrast or the cause-eflect text structure inasu- much as students are more likely to notice and utilize it when they read and locate infor- mation in informational texts. Sensitivity and the ability to use text structures are essential in reading compre- hension of informational text. When children have the ability to use text structure, they are more able to predict what they will read based on initial text statements, and prompt themselves to fix up any missing information by rereading to find the supporting details. Therefore, students in earlier and later elementary grades should be equipped with knowledge of text structure in an appropriate, meaningful context that helps them under- stand the purpose and value of text structure in a read-to-leam process. The context. Reading activities are practiced in the meaningful context of instruc- tion. This context includes students’ classrooms, schools, homes, and neighborhoods. Academic excellence often appears in a challenging and supportive context. Recent sociocultural work focuses on the impact of communities on students’ learning. For example, Lave and Wenger (2003) indicated that learning is situated within a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998). This model of situated learning involves a process of engagement where learners are gradually involved in the performance of a cognitive process. Through apprenticeship with trained adults, parents or advanced peers, learners build increasing confidence and competence in more fully performing all aspects 28 of the process, while receiving responsible assistance on still unmastered aspects. Cus- tomizing for different personal needs is also addressed in this model. This personalization includes differentiated instruction, curricula, assessment, and learning methods that tailor the learning experiences to suit personal needs, and that scaffold performance to bring the performance endpoints forward. Therefore, meaningful context for learning and situated activity settings should be considered in students’ learning. Cognitive (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) or sociocognitive (Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006) apprenticeship includes the idea of situated learning and communi- ties of practice that help novice learners learn by observing experienced members’ strate- gies and skills in situated problem-solving contexts. The apprenticeship process is en- hanced through the use of instructional dialogues and think-alouds, which are first di- rected by the teacher and used to make visible the invisible thoughts and actions of skilled readers and writers (Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006). In implementing think-alouds, teachers or experts first model what an experienced reader might be think- ing or doing while reading. Teachers model the application of strategies, inner dialogues, cognitive actions, and interactions with texts to improve the reader’s comprehension. Teachers or experts read one selection aloud and pause often to verbalize what they are reading and to explain how they make sense of the words or sentences, while students follow along silently. For example, the teacher may make comparisons and contrasts, make predictions, connect prior knowledge to new information, describe visual images, make conjectures about the author’s intentions, ask questions, and clarify confusions. To ensure that students master the inner dialogue and strategies, teachers release executive control of the cognitive routines to collaborative parters or small groups, who 29 share responsibility for directing, monitoring and evaluating the comprehension processes. Collaborative arrangements help students both extemalize and internalize the dialogue, as they make decisions and select the reading strategy that is most suitable to maintain good comprehension as they participate in joint conversations and situated problem-solving activities with peers. Moment-to-moment, the teacher stands by to mediate and support performance using instructional scaffolds or prompts until students reach the point where they can independently direct and regulate the reading process. Even diverse readers with varied ability levels can participate in and benefit from the think-aloud activity (Mi- gyankal et al., 2005). These dialogic activities can help such students be actively in- volved in the classroom talk in advance of independent performance. Through the prac- tice of dialogues, educators may better understand students’ cognitive work and compre- hension of reading activities which can be shared, constructed, assessed, and compared to earlier and later efforts for improvement (Willhelm, 2001). Instructionally, this body of literature suggests that an unsatisfactory apprentice- ship may mean that students do not fully master the cognitive routines that support com- prehension. For example, if teachers do not model and think-aloud the comprehension and search strategies for gathering and synthesizing information from print-based and online sources, then students may not have an opportunity to observe or acquire the skilled reading strategies and inner thinking of expert readers. Likewise, if teachers do not offer collaborative arrangements with the opportunity for students to assume gradual responsibility for the literacy discourse and strategies, then students may not have the full set of opportunities to develop greater metacognitive control that will allow them to di- 30 rect and regulate the reading comprehension process. These instructional problems will interfere with the ability of students to become skilled and successful readers. Online Reading Comprehension in Informational Texts One national statistic about the educational use of the Internet shows that 99% of US. public schools in 2001 had access to the Internet (National Center for Education Sta- tistics [NCES], 2002). This statistic suggests that the Internet is fast becoming a major learning tool and an information resource in K-12 education. Warschauer (2003) believes that the “digital divide” has intertwined technology (i.e., the Internet, equipment) and education and that this divide has influenced people’s understanding of technology. Within the context of a digital divide, several questions have to be addressed. Does the use of the Internet provide support for the learning proc- esses and comprehension of students in reading and writing? How do these students re- spond to the online texts and do they employ strategies? Thus, this section will mainly discuss the reading process and comprehension in the online information platform. Theoretical Perspectives Although there are many theoretical perspectives in the field of online reading comprehension, such as critical theory (Giroux, 1988), flow theory (Csikszenthmihalyi, 1990), and social semiotic theory (Lemke, 1989), two unique theoretical stances are used to frame this research that best fit the purposes and research questions in the study. Cognitive flexibility theory. Cognitive flexibility theory was first proposed by Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, and Coulson (1991). Spiro et a1. claimed that cognitive flexi- bility is a condition for developing mastery of complexity and knowledge transfer. The meaning of this theory is that the reader needs to synthesize multiple representations (e. g., 31 schema, organization, argument, prototype, analogy, etc.) when thinking about a concep- tual topic in flexible ways. In open-networked information platforms, even more rapid changes are required in switching from one reading context to another, making hypertext environments even less structured and more variable for the user to navigate and synthe- size (Spiro et al., 1991, 2004). This theory suggests that the reader in an ill-structured en- vironment (such as the Internet) needs even more flexible reading strategies that allow the user to adapt to new and changing online reading circumstances, so that they can re- visit the materials at different times for different purposes and conceptual perspectives (Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Such a hypertext reader has to integrate and construct meanings from the online text and images, as well as through the flexible and purposeful construc- tion of meaning based on hyperlinks, icons, interactive photographs, diagrams, and mul- timedia clips (e.g., movies, audio files). Therefore, the online reader needs the abilities and skills to flexibly integrate existing knowledge structures with new knowledge appli- cations in new reading situations (Spiro, 2004). In fact, the learning strategies applied in print text formats are much different in complex environments such as the Internet (Spiro, 2004). Therefore, it is important to find out the differences and unique characteristics of learning strategies and comprehension practices in open-networked reading environments. New literacies. The term new literacies has been defined in many different ways by different researchers. Street’s (1999) perspective of new literacies is derived from re- search on social practices, and Gee (2003) contends that new literacies entail the acquisi- tion of new discourses for new technologies. Other researchers suggest that new literacies involve the students’ increasing awareness and mastery of the symbolic or cultural con- texts created through new technologies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kress, 2004), while 32 some scholars see new literacies as extensions of everyday literacies based on a social and linguistic point of view (e.g., Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2003; Guzzetti & Gamboa, 2004) This research adopts Coiro and Dobler’s (2007) perspectives which focus on school contexts, as well as cognitive, social, and linguistic views to explore how students develop and demonstrate reading literacies and how they use online informational texts in formal school settings. This perspective of new literacies lies in the fact that today’s liter- acy is rapidly changing because of new technologies (Alexander & Jetton, 2000; Lank- shear & Knobel, 2003; Reinking, 1998), so that reading comprehension and strategy use online are important issues to be explored. Students may need to apply new comprehen- sion skills, strategies, and dispositions to communicate, inquire about, search for, locate, synthesize, evaluate, and organize information on the Internet (Leu et al., 2004). From that perspective, it seems that traditional reading comprehension skills and strategies are necessary, but not adequate when reading and locating information in online hypertexts (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). The Hypertext, Reader, & Context in Reading Comprehension Hypertext. A hypertext is a computer-based text which can be read on the screen. It is “a kind of information environment in which textual materials and ideas are linked to one another in multiple ways” (Burbules & Callister, 2000, p. 43). Hypertext is also “a network of links between words, ideas and sources, one that has neither a centre nor an end” (Snyder, 1998, p. 127). The term “hypertext” first appeared in the 19605 in Nelson’s research report, refen'ing to one text that was presented in a non-linear, user-assigned format (see Boyle, 1997). Currently, the most common hypertext is the World Wide Web 33 (WWW), which represents diverse textual genres and subject domains (Spires & Estes, 2002) There are several key differences between hypertext and traditional print. These differences relate to textual boundaries, linearity, and navigation. The first difference—— regarding textual boundaries—pertains to the limitation of the computer screen. An on- line reader may see less text at one time in a restricted area, while traditional print (i.e., books, newspapes, etc.) can be read from top to bottom across a page and fi'ont to back from page to page. Burbules and Callister (2000) and others (i.e., Hass, 1996; Sutherland- Smith, 2002) have in mind the fact that it is difficult to draw the borders or boundaries of a hypertext. With a printed text, the reader can physically lay it out on the floor and draw a physical line around it. With a hypertext, a page, image, or other element may exist in several places at once, since it is linked in several places. So it is much more difficult to draw or define the physical dimensions of the text. Hass (1996) believed that the online reader faces more challenges to make meanings and understand the hypertext than the reader of traditional text. The second difference between text and hypertext, which is frequently cited and discussed, pertains to the idea of linearity. Researchers claimed that the traditional text is sequential, which means it has a linear progression from paragraph to paragraph and from page to page, while the hypertext is non-sequential, and non-linear, which means that there is no strictly prescribed order in which the content should be read (Burbules & Cal- lister, 1996; Nielsen, 1995; Slatin, 1991; Sutherland-Smith, 2002). Bolter (1991) even argued that hypertext is multi-linear, rather than non-linear. Whereas Bolter believed that traditional print is designed to be read in one direction, with one order, and one pre- 34 determined format, hypertext is open to be read in a multi-directional manner with multi- ple options for readers who may choose among available connections and subtopics. Fur- thermore, the layout properties of hypertext mean that the hypertext reader has to select a target among a set of embedded links and explicit navigation tab names (Marchionini & Shneiderrnan, 1988) instead of turning pages to move through the text (Rouet & Levonen, 1996) or to make connections between texts (Bolter, 1991). These embedded features in hypertext systems allow readers to construct their own meanings, evaluate the content, and adjust their paths through multiple texts in a non-linear manner (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). In other words, readers can directly interact with the text, decide the sequence or information they want to access, and read in a manner that is more comfortable or mean- ingful to them (Jonassen, 1986; Landow, 1992). This is the essential difference in the reading function of hypertexts compared to traditional texts. A third difference is that the navigation of hypertext entails a more complex cog- nitive activity compared to what is required by linear text. Hypertext has a non-linear na- ture which imposes a higher cognitive load and disorientation (Heller, 1990; Jonassen & Wang, 1990; Schroeder, 1994; Spiro & Jehng, 1990), meaning that the reader must re- member what links are clicked and where s/he is in the hypertext architecture, decide where to go next, skip or explore the information based on goals and questions, under- stand how to find information and do further research, and monitor or track the Web pages previously visited (Edward & Hardman, 1989; Gray, 1990; Wright, 1991). When Internet users browse unstructured information along author-created links (i.e., external or internal links), browsing does raise traditional problems of disorientation and cognitive overhead (Zellweger, 1989). One of the reasons is that choices and multiple paths 35 through hypertext overload the reader’s cognitive capacities, in turn creating cognitive disequilibrium and disorientation (Lee & Tedder, 2003). Also, because of the dynamic flexibility in Web-based learning, it may allow the online reader too much freedom to navigate at will. When moving back and forth between the links and text units, there are two possible effects of the discontinuity in processing information. First, the interruption of hypertexts may interfere with the integrated representation of the text as a whole (Dee- Lucas & Larkin, 1995) because the reader processes the hypertext units as segmented in- formation bits rather than as interrelated messages (Lee & Tedder, 2003). That is, the reader has to build a connection between new pieces of information in the hypertexts as well as build connections with his/her prior knowledge. It might therefore be more diffi- cult to identify the main ideas and supporting details for the overall texts. Second, the in- terrupted hypertext may increase the difficulty of information processing because the reader is attending to each individual unit. That is, the reader has to pay more attention to the textual cues and unit titles when retrieving information in hypertexts (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1995). Several researchers (e.g., Chamey, 1994; Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1995) have also po i nted out that structural tools (i.e., headings, sub-headings, pages, table of contents) are iIIlIDQrtant in the print text, which is similar to the structural cues (i.e., headings, explicit Dav i gation tab names) in a hypertext. If these structural cues are not represented in the l”15’TleeJtext, the reader’s strategies, navigation (Naumann, Waniek, & Krems, 2001), and comprehension (Foltz, 1996) will be disturbed, causing disorientation, cognitive overload, loss of information or purpose, or even random progression. Therefore, the hypertext 1‘ ‘ . . . . a1 3 e s specrfic challenges to comprehensron and nav1gation because the reader has to en- 36 gage in non-linear and flexible characteristics of reading which contrast with the skills required for reading linear, conventional print (Thuring, Haake, & Hannemann, 1991). Besides these characteristics and differences, hypertexts also require visual liter- acy skills to comprehend multimedia elements (Sutherland-Smith, 2002). Hypertext read- ing engages the reader to process and integrate text and nontext components, such as graphics, images, photos, diagrams, and multimedia (audios and videos). Visual compo- nents can supplement the reading process and give clues about where to look on the Web. However, visual elements can also distract the reader and cause difficulty with finding written information in the hypertext. In terms of conveying convey pertinent information, the images play a role as important as text. Reading with an eye to the visual components on a Website may become another reading strategy that can help the reader quickly catch the gist of a Web page. Often the gist may be gleaned from quickly glancing over a page ’ 3 images, treating them like headings. In other words, examining and evaluating the images can help the reader discern the meaning, incorporate visuals into the reading process, and supplement the reading comprehension process (Sutherland-Smith, 2002). Therefore, as Bolter (1998) pointed out, “literacy in electronic environments may have more to do with the production and consumption of images than the reading and writing 0f either hypertextual or linear prose” (p. 7). Teaching the hypertext reader how to evalu- ate the hypertext and visual components is another important lesson to be addressed. Hypertext structure is another focal issue in online reading comprehension. The retakier has to understand the hypertext structure in order to deve10p an action plan and retri eve information before engaging in reading (RRSG, 2002). The hypertext structure helps the reader understand the organizational pattern and establish a mental process for 37 finding the information from the text (Unrau, 2004). The strategic reader is aware of the structure and catches the implication and meanings fiom the author, as well as pays atten- ti on to the organization and searches for the cohesiveness of the logical sequence and ar- rangements (Kymes, 2005). Therefore, when the reader is equipped with the knowledge of the hypertext structure, the search for information and evaluating the Website is much eas ier (Kuiper, Volman, & Terwel, 2005; Kymes, 2005). In one research article exploring the hypertext structure and navigation strategies of hypertext readers (Gray, 1990), ten students tried to read information from a hypertext with different structures. Think-aloud protocols were recorded during the hypertext navi- gati on. When experienced students were asked to draw a representation of the hypertext structure from what they read, they could show simple hierarchies, sequences, and tables. The author concluded that novice hypertext readers need more structural cues in hyper- text reading, while the experienced readers could deal with more ill-structured hypertexts after appropriate instruction and training (Gray, 1990). In fact, structural cues may be an important factor of hypertext readability. Beside the chronological sequence, hierarchical map (concept map), and procedural illustration 0-6., tables, charts) that were mentioned in the above study, headings, connections, and Other graphic organizers can provide organizational cues to benefit text comprehension. These structural cues can help the reader locate information, keep track of previous steps, and remember the content (Rouet & Levonen, 1996). Several studies have argued that structuring hypertext improves reading perform- ance and navigation. Dee-Lucas and Larkin (1992) asked college students to read hyper- t - . . . . . . ext In two formats: alphabetic index (unstructured verswn) and hierarchical index (struc- 38 tured version). The results suggested that the students better recalled the organization of titles in the hierarchical index than the alphabetic one; they selected more Web pages and had more efficient navigation patterns in the hierarchical index as well. These results are consistent with those reported by Simpson and McKnight (1990), who investigated the navigation effects of hierarchical and alphabetic indexes. Another study conducted by Mohageg (1992) even reported that the hierarchical structure could support faster search- in g than could unstructured or linear text. These studies all showed that structural cues faci litate navigation in hypertext because readers may build up mental maps through the hierarchical representations and hypertext structure (Dillon, McKnight, & Richardson, 1990). The reader. The reader may experience both similarities and differences among the comprehension processes used with electronic and print texts (Duke, Schmar-Dobler, & Zhang, 2006). These similarities and differences among comprehension processes and strategy applications are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. These figures show that the reader may transfer some strategies acquired in traditional text formats into electronic text environments, while some strategies are specific to particular textual environments. Expert hypertext readers may apply a variety of strategies that correspond to specific gen- res. 39 The Text, Reader, & Context in Reading Comprehension Reading Online Reading Comprehensron Cognitive Theory & Sociocultural Comprehension Strategies in Principles Strategies Conventional Text Basic value: Basic value: T/u' liliyn'ru'xl rem/0r engages in Reader d} In! interact in a broader .s'm‘im‘u/tm'u/ ('mum‘t. non-linear & The Hypertext, Reader, & Context in l""“””" . . _ l‘cading Conlprchcnsion ('lllll'tl('l(’l'l.\'lll1V 0/ It‘tlt/lllg. {Cognitive Flexibility Theory & ] New Digital Literacics Figure 2. The “Loop” Diagram of Reading Comprehension Strategies Comprehension Comprehension strategies and processes strategies and processes in print texts in electronic texts Figure 3. The overlap between comprehension strategies and processes used with print teXtS and those used with electronic texts. Researchers have concluded that a skilled hypertext reader takes an active role in ITlIlCling information, encountering and exploring different types of information (Boume, l 990; Dee-Lucas& Larkin, 1995), and applying a number of comprehension strategies which are similar to those used in print-based texts (e.g., Altun, 2000; Baker & Brown, 1 984; Coiro & Dobler, 2003; Hillinger & Leu, 1994; Kim & Kamil, 1999; Lawless & 40 Kulikowich, 1994; Schmar, 2002; Schmar-Dobler, 2003). Table 4 further illustrates the similarities between the reading strategies applied by expert readers while reading both formats (hypertexts and print texts). These strategies include planning (setting up a pur- pose before reading), activating background knowledge, previewing, predicting, noticing hypertext structure and main ideas, evaluating hypertext, and monitoring. Also, good on- line readers use the “hypertextual links” of Web pages to locate information and jump among different chunks of hypertexts, in the same way that they use the table of contents or i ndex of print texts to jump among multiple sections (J aynes, 1989). Altun (2000) addressed the way that such expert readers skillfully transfer their print text reading strategies to the computer reading environment; however, these print- text strategies are utilized differently in hypertext reading. For example, informational reading in print-text enlists a more linear approach in which readers read page by page without much active decision-making about what and where to read next, while hypertext uses a non-linear structure in which readers have to make decisions to decide about Whether to click on a link or access the text (Duke et a1, 2006). Along these lines, hyper- text readers may encounter more choices, challenges, and difficulties, than they did with linear print texts, a situation that can cause cognitive overload, impair comprehension, and divert attention (Gordon, Gustave], Moore, & Hanky, 1988; Rouet, Levonen, Dillon, & Spiro, 1996). These readers need to exert “control over” what and how they read (Pat- tel‘Son, 2000) with more “cognitive energy” (van Oostendorp & de Mu], 1996) or they need to extend their “thinking processes” (Coiro, 2003) to make meanings from hyper- texts (Duke et al., 2006). These differences in the online context make lntemet reading a 41 challenging task and may require that online readers develop additional effective reading strategies to cope with the online reading environment (Kamil & Lane, 1998). Table 4. Summary of Research Findings in Reading Strategies of Print and Electronic Texts Print Reading Strategies Online Reading Strategies B efore °Set a purpose and goals for reading (e. g., to study, for entertainment) °Preview the text (e.g., title, intro- duction, headings, pic- tures/graphics, captions, sum- mary, questions) °Plan how to read the text (e.g., front to back, or specific sections) °Plan or set up a purpose °Scan the hypertext (e. g., title, head- ings, pictures, graphics) °Preview hyperlinks °Search for information or locate Websites using keywords or terms in a systematic manner During °Think about what is already known °Notice hypertext structure and main about the topics ideas °Anticipate and utilize text structures 'Make decision about exploring or 'Ask questions and seek answers giving up for specific Websites or °Predict, confirm, or modify predic— Web pages tions °Apply non-linear, non-sequential, °Identify important information and and non-hierarchical strategies of details thinking 'Relate important points across the °Use visual literacy skills to compre- text hend and evaluate multimedia °Paraphrase and summarize as a components means to remember what was °Transfer hypertexts or graphics to a read jump drive or Word processor for °Infer, add missing details, make as- further work sociations °Organize information from the °Visualize what is described search list to deduce an answer ’Monitor comprehension °Mend breakdowns in comprehen- sion (e.g., re-read, use the glos- sary, consult graphics) °Take notes and highlight important \ ideas. Afier °Summarize °Save Websites or Web pages as an °Reflect Internet bookmark °Synthesize 'Search for related Websites for fur- °Write ther research or interests \ °Evaluate hypertext 42 Reading and searching for information on the Internet is an interactive process be- tween the reader and the hypertext (Wang, Hawk, & Tenopir, 2000). Reader characteris- tics, including prior knowledge, attitude, age, and gender are important factors in the reading process and results. First of all, it is easier for the reader with more prior knowledge to generate ap- propriate keywords when searching for information and to evaluate the reliability of the information on the Internet. In other words, prior knowledge about the topic is closely related to online searching skills, and knowledge of online searching is necessary for ex- ploring new topics (Fidel, Davies, Douglass et al., 1999). Second, students’ disposition and attitude influence their willingness to explore the Web and the success they are likely to have. Student engagement, motivation, prior successful experience, and positive attitude are all important characteristics in exploring and searching the Internet. These affective attitudes may affect the quality of student un- derstanding and learning (Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000). When students are fully in- volved in the searching process, they also experience emotions, such as optimism in the beginning, frustration with a hard search, and satisfaction when a challenging search task is completed (Kuhlthau, 1997). Third, age may be another key characteristic affecting the reading process and Searching strategy; however, little research to date has investigated this area, as most re- Seat‘chers limit their studies to a specific age group (i.e, college students or adolescents). Kafai and Bates (1997) included several age groups of elementary-school students in their research and concluded that older children can indicate why a particular Website is usefill or not, while younger children only state that they like this Website. 43 Another factor that appears to affect the searching and reading process is the reader’s gender. In one study of 53 sixth-grade students, the results showed that boys tended to apply more search strategies than girls did; boys used a single keyword more often, while girls used combinations of keywords; boys clicked more often on links and jumped backward and forward between Web pages; boys spent less time on reading each Web page (Large, Beheshti, & Rahman, 2002). Gender differences do influence the aca- demic and behavioral areas of the offline curriculum, and differences between boys and girls offline also appear in the Web environment. Another characteristic of expert hypertext readers is that they need to be active and navigate a hypertext constantly to avoid becoming disoriented on the Web (Altun, 2000; Duke et al., 2006; van Oostendorp & de Mul, 1996). They need to be aware of the hypertext structure to know where they are, where they want to go, and how to get there (Kim & Hirtle, 1995). This strategy reflects the fact that reading is a cognitive activity With multiple facets (Rouet et al., 1996). As the Internet has become more widely used by school children, it seems clear that online search engines and Web browsers have replaced the traditional library. Two research reports from the Pew Internet and American Life Projects provided a snapshot of Students’ online literacy practices. In the first Pew Internet project, 754 students aged 12 t0 1 '7 and their parents were surveyed. The results showed that these middle and high Sch001 Intemet-savvy students and their parents share a perception of the Internet as the best tool to help students finish their schoolwork because the Internet is a virtual textbook and has replaced the library (Lenhart, Simon, & Graziano, 2001). Similarly, in the second Pew Internet project, 136 youth in 14 equal-gender racially diverse focus groups de- 44 scribed the Internet as a “virtual textbook and reference library,” “virtual tutor and study shortcut,” “virtual study group,” and “virtual guidance counselor” (Levin, Arafeh, Len- hart, & Rainie, 2002). Wells and Chen (2007) conducted a case study regarding the Inter- net and computer behaviors. The findings suggested that seven out of eight adolescents preferred to use the Internet rather than the library. They went to Google as their primary search resource. Besides Google, they also used several others Websites, such as Wikipe- dia and Yahoo, when they looked for information for their school assignments. They ex- pressed that using these Websites was much convenient and faster than going to the li- brary. Several researchers have indicated that hypertext readers seem to need more time to read online than print-text readers because additional time is used to explore or select information (e.g., Blohm, 1982; Lawless & Kulikowich, 1993; see Lawless et al., 2003; Reinking & Schreiner, 1985). The method of navigation or selection of information on- line can distinguish three types of hypertext readers: (1) a knowledge seeker, (2) a feature explorer, and (3) an apathetic reader (Anderson-Inman & Homey, 1994; Barab, Bowdish & Lawless, 1997; Lawless & Kulikowich, 1996, 1998; Niederhauser, Salmen, & Rey- nolds; 1998). Knowledge seekers use strategies to pursue related information online. They read the computer screen in a logical sequence and locate information in a system- atic way. Readers in the second category, feature explorers, are readers who enjoy inter- acting with computerized media, such as graphics, audio features, video files, and other multimedia features. They are curious about the multimedia features in hypertexts and willing to invest time in understanding how the multimedia relate to the text. Readers in the third category, apathetic hypertext users, do not aggressively pursue information or 45 explore computerized media. They may randomly click the available multimedia features, but they do not apply strategies to acquire knowledge. They read without following any logical order and without making meaningful selections, and they explore randomly. With different types of navigation on the Internet, there are also various ways to search for information using online search engines and Web browsers: typing keywords with different levels of complexity in a search engine, browsing through topics in an in- dex, entering a specific Web address (Uniform Resource Locator [URL]), and clicking links (internal or external links) on a Website (Kuiper et al., 2005). How do elementary and middle school students search for information on the Internet? Kafai and Bates (1997) were two of the pioneers to explore the use of the Web by elementary schoolchildren in Grades 1-6. They found that most of the children in the higher elementary grades could find relevant information for their class projects using search engines with keywords and some specific Websites, but it was difficult for them to select or evaluate good sites. Elementary-aged students selected some Websites after looking only at the titles on a search results page and they were not patient enough to read the descriptions of sites or to carefully read through a whole list of search results. In a similar study, researchers found that four students (two sixth- and two ninth-grade stu- dents) who were observed had difficulties in selecting and spelling keywords and using Boolean operators when searching for answers on the Internet (Lyons, Hoffman, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997). Online searching strategies and behaviors can also be seen in school children in other studies. One experimental study conducted by Schacter, Chung, and Dorr (1998) on 32 upper-elementary students (fifih- and sixth-grades). found that children preferred to 46 browse Web pages rather than use keywords to locate information. This means that those students searched for information in an intuitive way, rather than in a systematic manner. Similarly, Large and Beheshti (2000) interviewed and observed 50 sixth-grade students and found that elementary-school students preferred to browse Web pages rather than use keywords because they did not know how to choose suitable keywords to locate informa- tion. Schacter et al. (1998) concluded that elementary-school children experienced more difficulties in browsing passages, searching for information, finding answers, and using strategies online because the Internet is a vague abstract environment (with ill-structured texts), not a precise, concrete task (with well-structured passages). Other researchers (Wallace, Kupperman, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2000) argued that even if students had sufficient technical skills to locate information on the Internet, they were still unable to use the information they found to complete their projects. For exam- ple, eight sixth-grade students from one study only entered specific Websites and tried to find specific, concrete answers in a restricted area instead of transforming the information they found to deduce an answer or make inferences. As mentioned earlier, they also ran- domly and unsystematically used keywords and did not spend much time examining the information to make immediate decisions about whether the Website was useful (Wallace et al., 2000). Similarly, in Hirsh’s (1999) research, ten fifth-grade students quickly made decisions about whether a Website chosen from the search results page would be helpfiil after reading several sentences on the Website. Across these various studies, researchers agreed that elementary-school students mainly wanted to find a concrete and easy answer in a quick manner rather than spend time on assessing, deliberating, examining, evaluat- ing, and deducing a complete answer from collecting and organizing information on the 47 Internet by themselves (Hirsh, 1999; Wallace et al., 2000). When schoolchildren prefer to find information in this “virtual library,” it is important that they develop appropriate, adequate comprehension strategies in the online context. The context. Internet technologies are recognized as having positive effects for literacy learning inside and outside of the school context (Hull & Schultz, 2001). These benefits of using technology include increasing the learners’ development skills, such as comprehension (Matthew, 1997), word recognition (Davidson, Elcock, & Noyes, 1996), phonological awareness (Wise & Olson, 1995), spelling (Higgins & Raskind, 2000), mo- tivation in reading (N icolson, F awcett, & Nicolson, 2000), and writing (Rowley, Carson, Miller, 1998). All of these skills are important in the comprehensive literacy curriculum. Also, Internet technologies can improve literacy learning and performance for general education students (Allen & Thompson, 1995), at-risk children (Howell, Erickson, Stan- ger, & Wheaton, 2000), learners with learning disabilities (MacArthur & Haynes, 1995), and even multiple-disabled students (I-Ieimann, Nelson, Tjus, & Gillberg, 1995). Using Internet technologies in literacy learning can work across the borders of school in that students can engage in reading activities anytime and anywhere, as long as they have adequate Web access beyond school (i.e., home, library, or parents’ offices). Reading is a meaning-making process that involves individual self-reflection and others’ involvement through think-aloud (Wilhelm, 2001). The think-aloud is often used in the print environment to “hear” and evaluate the reader’s comprehension. Through the think-aloud, the reader can voice his thoughts and feelings, and articulate his understand- ing of a given text’s structure. 48 Similar to the think-aloud in the print environment, using the think-aloud online can help readers internalize the reading strategies required in the information-seeking and online reading behaviors. It has been proven that think-alouds can effectively enhance strategy implementation and decision-making in online environments (Brandt, 2000; Nielsen, 1997; Shapiro, 1994), as well as metacognitive thinking and reading comprehen- sion (Wilhelm, 2001). However, to date, there are no published empirical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of online think-alouds and their relationship to information search and online reading behaviors (Kymes, 2005). This is a new area that scientific re- search, cognition studies, and reading research may focus on. Reading Comprehension in Print and Online Environments for Students with LD Reading is one of the learning challenges that students with LD face. Researchers believe that students with LD have many reading problems that hinder their reading com- prehension, such as insufficient development of metacognitive awareness and knowledge (e.g., Flavell, 1981; Garner, 1992), inadequate monitoring for learning and ineffective learning strategies (i.e., Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Torgesen & Licht, 1983), limited knowledge of the differences between narrative and informational texts (i.e., Gersten et al., 2001), and little awareness of the different text structures in informa- tional texts (i.e., Gregg & Mather, 2002). These reading challenges and difficulties will be further discussed in the next paragraphs. Reading Problems in Print Materials for Students with LD Reading is the most frequently mentioned academic subject for special education students with learning disabilities (LD) (Englert et al., 2009; Lindsey & Kerlin, 1979). These learning-disabled (LD) students experience some of the most serious difficulties in 49 learning to read, including difficulties with word reading, fluency, decoding, and com- prehension (Chen & Englert, submitted; Deshler, Ellis & Lenz, 1996; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). They also experience several problems in comprehending ex- pository texts (Williams, 2005), such as in applying reading comprehension strategies (Alley & Deshler, 1979; Englert & Thomas, 1987), being alert to expository text patterns (Englert & Thomas, 1987), using text structure knowledge for encoding and retrieving of content area information (Englert & Thomas, 1987), recalling textual ideas (Spring & Prager, 1992; Warren & Fitzgerald, 1997), identifying main ideas and supporting details (Baumann, 1984), attending to extraneous information (Williams, 1993), making infer- ences (Holmes, 1985), relating new information with background knowledge (Johnson, Graham, & Harris, 1997), and monitoring comprehension (Wong, 1994). Graham and Harris (1997) found that students with LD tend to pay little attention to “the needs of the audience, the organization of text, the development of rhetorical goals, or the constraints imposed by the topic” (Graham & Harris, 1997, p. 414). Such students exhibit common characteristics of inactive learners, such as not adequately monitoring their learning or effectively applying learning strategies (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Tor- gesen & Licht, 1983). Metacognition. As stated in the previous section, metacognition is a term that re- fers to knowledge about and control of cognitive processes and activities for the purpose of seeing if one is performing successfiilly. Metacognition is related to one’s learning ability, and includes awareness of learning processes, task difficulty, and strategy appli- cation (Baker, 2002). It was first defined as “one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them” (Flavell, 1976, p. 232). 50 Simply put, it is the thinking about one’s thinking that Clay (1991) calls “inner control.” That is, the reader with metacognition is aware of the easiness or difficulty of the material, which subjects or topics align with his or her interests, and how to prepare for exams by using various strategies or resource materials. Metacognition is acknowledged as having importance in reading comprehension (e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Garner, 1987; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997; Mayer, 1998; Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). However, learners with LD have not developed the meta- cognitive awareness to sufficiently assess their understanding as they read in order to in- fluence their comprehension (F lavell, 1981; Garner, 1992). Other research shows that younger and poor readers also have less metacognitive knowledge and weaker control of their comprehension processes in reading than older and better readers (Baker & Brown, 1984; Garner, 1987; Hacker, 1998; Markman, 1977; Myers & Paris, 1978). Reader-based strategy use. Struggling readers including learners with LD do not frequently apply learning strategies to help them read (Englert et al., 2009). Failure to employ appropriate strategies is a critical issue for students with LD (Alley & Deshler, 1979). They are often categorized as passive learners who experience problems in spon- taneously applying, selecting, and monitoring effective learning strategies (Torgesen, 1982). These problems include less active search (Bransford, Stein, & Vye, 1982; Paris & Meyers, 1981), less efficient text-scanning strategies (DiVesta, Hayward, & Orlando, 1979; Garner & Reis, 1981), less sufficient comprehension-monitoring strategies (Bos & Filip, 1984), and less sensitivity to text structure (Smith & Friend, 1986). They demon- strate a limited knowledge of strategies in literacy learning contexts, with documented difficulties in activating background knowledge, predicting text ideas, self-inquiring, 51 clarifying, rehearsing, and summarizing (Chen & Englert, submitted; Englert et al., in press; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997). They tend to insufficiently develop and apply the strategic skills that would enable them to self-regulate and self-monitor their literacy per- formance (see Englert et al., in press; Graham, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1995; Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997). Most importantly, they may not apply various strategies in different reading phases, such as before, during, and alter read- ing (Chen & Englert, submitted; Gersten et al., 2001; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996; Englert et al., in press). Outside the US. context, international scholars have also discussed reading prob- lems among students with LD. For example, Taiwanese scholars pointed out that elemen- tary-school students with LD might face other reading comprehension problems. Meng (2002) found that these students may not understand the main ideas and details after read- ing fiom a text; as well, they may fail to infer the meaning of a word from its context, they may overlook punctuation in sentences, and they may be tripped up by a word with multiple meanings or by different words with similar meanings. Lin (1998) examined students with LD and their general education peers, and concluded that learners with LD did not sufficiently monitor their reading comprehension or use reading strategies to help them read. Even if they did apply strategies, they did so much less frequently and with a smaller number of strategies than their regular class peers. Textual types. Broadly speaking, there are two main types of text: narrative texts (i.e., stories) and informational texts (expository or explanatory passages). Research shows that students with LD display limited knowledge of the differences between narra- tive and informational texts (Gersten et al., 2001), and especially experience more diffi- 52 culties in identifying the important ideas in informational texts and recognizing the orga- nizational patterns that determine how ideas are arranged and signaled in different sub- genres of informational texts. They could not use strategies that underlie effective com- prehension of informational text or, as writers, identify the text structures that affect the quality of their informational compositions (Chen & Englert, submitted; Englert & Tho- mas, 1987; Englert et al., 1989). This comprehension difficulty caused by limited knowl- edge of informational text structures for students with LD will be further explained in the next paragraph. Text structures. As mentioned in the last section, text structure refers to the way a text is organized to guide readers in identifying key ideas and making connections among points (Englert et al., in press; Vaughn & Klingner, 2004). Readers who are aware of text structure will adopt particular courses of action in approaching texts (Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980). For example, they will tend to “chunk” or organize the text as they read. This ability to understand and use informational text structure is essential in school leam- ing, but it can be a problem for students with LD. Such students demonstrate less aware- ness of the different text structures in informational texts than their normally achieving peers. These learners with LD often struggle with determining the main ideas and identi- fying the types of text structures (Chen & Englert, submitted; Gregg & Mather, 2002) that underlie the arrangement of ideas, including compare/contrast, explanation, enumera- tion, and persuasive texts (Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Englert et al., 1989; Wong, Wong, & Blenkinsop, 1989). Englert and Thomas (1987), for example, found that students with LD were weak in their abilities to form expectations for the details that would follow a topic or main 53 idea sentence, which inhibited their ability to anticipate and construct the relationship be- tween the text passages and related details. As an example, if students with LD were shown the sentence stem “there are many ways to travel across town,” they might predict that the next sentence would be “my bike is red,” rather than “these ways include riding a bike, sliding a skateboard, taking a bus, or just taking a walk.” In this example, students with LD showed some sense of the topic (e.g., travel), but they did not identify the text structure (e.g., enumeration) or constrain their identification and production of relevant details and evidence. Furthermore, even though the text is read aloud to control the vari- able of decoding difficulties for students with LD, they still have limited awareness of text structure, which inhibited them from organizing information and recalling main ideas from the text (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Hansen, 1978; Taylor & Williams, 1983; Wong & Wilson, 1984). This inability influences the abilities of students with LD to read and write coherent passages, since they may not be able to identify the higher-order units cor- responding to the purpose and intended meanings of groups of related ideas. Sensitivity to text structure has a pervasive effect on learning performance since students must apply that knowledge in an iterative fashion throughout the literacy process as part of planning, organizing, summarizing, composing, and monitoring texts. Using text structure to identify and make use of informational ideas is a key element in school literacy, but students with LD may not be equipped with this ability (Dickson, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1995; Seidenberg, 1989). One of the reasons for this inability is that the structures of informational texts are distinct from those of narrative texts, so students with LD have a hard time transferring the reading strategies applied to narrative text to the task of comprehending expository texts (Seidenberg, 1989). This makes it harder for stu- 54 dents with LD to recognize the supporting evidence in paragraphs, and identify the gist and main ideas in informational texts (Bakken, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 1997). Contextual factors. Contextual (environmental) factors have to be considered in reading tasks, especially for upper-elementary and middle school students with LD. They rely on the academic, social, and environmental settings to cope with and respond to texts in addition to effective literacy instruction that is aimed at increasing their skills and strategies. However, those students who get support from resource rooms receive little reading strategy instruction, especially for hypertexts; instead, they may receive assis- tance only with completing their homework assignments from their general education courses. This cannot provide students with the ability to transfer knowledge and inde- pendently complete tasks when they face similar tasks in the near future. Important Issues in Online Reading of Students with LD Students with disabilities often experience reading problems, such as difficulties with reading fluency, text comprehension, text reasoning, and vocabulary learning (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993). With the advent of computer technologies in elementary school classrooms, many educators turned to electronic materials to assist students who have difficulties reading (Higgins & Boone, 1997; Kulik & Kulik, 1991). Nowadays, these educators are applying emerging technologies, such as the Internet, to assist such students with reading in general content education (Castellani & Jeffs, 2001). There are several advantages for people with disabilities who have access to hypertext. First, hyper- text can accommodate people’s particular needs. For example, they can change the size, appearance, and layout of text using screen or text readers in the hypertext. Second, hy- pertext contains graphics, sound, and video that help motivate students and enhance their 55 literacy learning (Center for Applied Special Technology, 1996). Third, the hypertext may be effective for special education students because the text provides specific struc- tural cues and textual signals (i.e., headings, explicated navigation tab names, advanced organizers, topic overviews, summarizing statements, preview sentences, and boldface or italics) that reduce working memory load and benefit self—regulated learning processes and recall, even in expository passages (Naumann, Richter, F lender, Christmann, & Groeben, 2007). Such signals or cues help learners form a coherent representation using strategies to comprehend main ideas and supporting details. Also, learners will find it easier to select, organize, and integrate information with prior knowledge when they use the navigation tab names in the hypertext (N aumann et al., 2007). Reading and searching for information on the Internet is an interactive process be- tween the reader and hypertext (Wang, Hawk, & TenOpir, 2000). Students’ characteristics are also important factors that influence the reading process and results. Students with special needs are a particular group that needs and deserves more attention regarding their learning and instruction. However, research to date has paid little attention to the role that student characteristics play in online environments (Kuiper et al., 2005). While the Internet is central in students’ learning, it is imperative to examine students’ reading characteristics, searching behaviors, and strategy application in this ill-structured, online context, including students with and without learning disabilities. Afier all, online leam- ing will not only benefit students’ school learning, but also their lifelong education. Purpose of the Study Because the Internet is pervasive in schools and in people’s homes and has be- come an important tool for teaching and learning (Ministry of Education, Republic of 56 China (Taiwan), 1998; 2003; US. Department of Education, 2004; Web-based Education Commission, 2000), it is important to explore students’ online reading strategy use and hypertext processing skill. However, as stated earlier, little is yet known about the com- prehension and learning processes of online reading strategy application of elementary- school students with or without learning disabilities, including US. and international learners. This is especially true for Taiwanese learners. A systematic search of scholarly databases in Taiwan located only three research articles focusing on the online reading comprehension strategies of students without LD (i.e., Chang, Su, & Sung, 2001; 2002; Sung, Lin, Chang, & Huang, 2004), and no research studies addressing the online reading behaviors of students with LD (Lin, 2006). It therefore seems urgently important to in- vestigate whether disability status may contribute to differences among students with re- gard to their knowledge demonstration, reading comprehension, strategy implementation, and skill application. It seems plausible that elementary children with learning disabilities may use different online reading strategies than students without disabilities when inter- acting with hypertext and hypermedia. Very few studies have looked at—let alone thor- oughly investigated—how these students meaningfully acquired and integrated hyper- texts. Furthermore, when students step into middle schools, informational passages, which are seldom taught in elementary schools, will be the main textual materials. With more and more students reading informational texts of various kinds on the Internet, it therefore also seems urgently important to investigate the reading strategies students with and without LD use with regard to this particular kind of online text. Drawing on this context, the purpose of this study was to investigate students’ (with and without LD) application of online reading strategies and hypertext processing 57 skills to online expository texts. Based on the fact that, in most schools, Internet use in- creases substantially for most students in the higher-grade of elementary school, the deci- sion was made to focus on upper-elementary and lower middle school students. To give the study an international and comparative dimension, taking advantage of the author’s expertise and background, the decision was made to study students both in the US. and in Taiwan. Research Questions A single major research question led to four minor research questions. The major question was: How do upper-elementary students with LD and their general education peers in the United States and Taiwan approach the comprehension process in informa- tional literacy tasks involving hypertext environments? The minor questions deriving fiom this major question were as follows: 1. What are their Internet strategies and behaviors? 2. How do they perceive and utilize the organizational structure provided in online environments? 3. How do they search for information using the Internet? 4. What reading strategies do they utilize before, during, and after an informational literacy task in a hypertext format? 58 METHOD Participants 119 fifth- and sixth-grade students participated in this study. This number comprised 52 general education students and 6 students with LD from four US schools, and 52 gen- eral education students and 9 students with LD from two Taiwanese schools. The stu- dents were from suburban schools in the Midwestern U.S. and from northern Taiwan (see Table 5). Each of the students with LD met the criteria for how LD was defined and di- agnosed in the public school district: l. identification by the school district as having LD, based on a significant discrep- ancy between ability and achievement using a regression formula; 2. a verbal or Performance IQ scale score between 80 and 135 on the Wechsler Intel- ligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III); 3. an achievement discrepancy of at least one standard deviation in reading or writ- ten expression as determined by composite score on a standardized norm- referenced test of educational achievement; 4. absence of sensory motor and emotional disabilities; and 5. English or Chinese/Mandarin as their primary language. Table 5. Participant information Location # of students in Group Survey # of students in Individual Measures U.S. 52 All 5th Grade M: 21; White: 47 4 All 5th Grade M: 1; White: 4 GE F: 31 Black: 5 GE F: 3 6 5th Grade: 2; M: 4; White: 4 5 5th Grade: 2; M: 4; White: 4 LD 6th Grade: 4 F' 2 Black: 2 LD 6th Grade: 3 F: 1 Black: 1 Taiwan 52 All 5th Grade M: 27; All Tai- 7 All 5th Grade M: 3; All Tai- GE F: 25 wanese GE F: 4 wanese 9 5th Grade: 6; M: 5; All Tai- 9 5th Grade: 6; M: 5; All Tai- LD 6th Grade: 3 F: 4 wanese LD 6th Grade: 3 F: 4 wanese Total 119 students 25 student 59 All 119 students participated in a group survey, and 25 of these students were ran- domly selected to receive individual measures. These measures are explained in the fol- lowing sections. Materials Literacy Measures. Several group and individual measures were utilized to de- termine each student’s reading skills and strategy use on the Internet. In the first measure (measure A), a whole-class questionnaire about students’ reading strategies (see Appen- dix A) was administrated in the fall semester after the start of school. The questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes and was administered by the researcher. The question- naire was read aloud to students to minimize difficulties with word recognition abilities or reading fluency speed (Englert et al., 1991). This survey included a paper-pencil for- mat that required the students to answer 18 questions. The survey questions asked students about their Internet use, reading comprehen- sion strategies in print and online environments, and strategies for online information searches. For example, “Internet use” asked about the frequency of students’ online ac- tivities, such as online reading (i.e., news, blogs, Facebook, Websites, emails, etc.), email use, Instant Messenger/text message typing, TV show/movie viewing, blog/Facebook writing, information searching, Internet game playing, and file downloading. “Reading comprehension” surveyed students’ understanding of reading activities, such as print ma- terials, online texts, and online information finding. “Online information search” meas- ured strategies for finding information online, such as search term selection and search result decision-making. “Online reading comprehension” measured students’ online read- ing comprehension through written retelling in structured and less structured texts. The 60 online “structured texts” were online passages with labels, chunks, categories, or sub- headings in the navigation tabs, while the “less structured texts” contained hypertext pas- sages without specified labels or chunks. Students were asked to retell the passages after reading the structured and less structured texts. They were also asked to assign appropri- ate tabs to the passages. “Online reading strategies” measured strategy applications in different reading stages: before, during, and after reading on the Internet. In the second measure (measure B), individual online reading comprehension ac- tivities were measured (see Appendix B). This measure took approximately 20 minutes and was conducted by the researcher. Each of the students individually read and an- swered reading comprehension questions regarding two Websites: one consisted of five Web pages with labels/chunks and navigation tabs, while the other Website consisted of hypertext pages without labels/chunks and navigation tabs. In the first Websitez, called “Cheetahs’ World,” there were five Web pages that presented short informational passages, photographs, diagrams, icons, hyperlinks, and multimedia clips. Each of the five Web pages covered one topic related to the Cheetahs, and each Web page contained hyperlinks with labels/chunks and navigation tabs. These topics encompassed content that pertained to the cheetahs’ possible extinction, food and ' hunting habits, habitat, appearance, and life cycle. In the second Website3 the researcher directed each student to a main Web page about “Tasmanian Devils” created by “National Geographic Kids.” This Web site dis- played arrows that students could click to read a number of informational passages. How- ever, the Web pages in this site did not have any labels/chunks or navigation tabs. Still, 2 https://www.msucduh-chcnhsl l/Chectah/index.html 3 http://kids.nationzllgeographic.com/Animals/CreatureFeature/Tzlsmanian-devil 61 the Web site’s content fell into five categories or topics: possible extinction, food and hunting habits, habitat, appearance, and offspring. In addition, the Tasmanian Devils Web pages also included photographs, diagrams, icons, hyperlinks, and multimedia clips, so it was graphically and textually similar to the first Website. The topical content of the two Websites was not related to the students’ textbooks or required reading materials in their regular classes. In the first Website, a readability score of level 5 was obtained using the F lesch-Kincaid (F-K) formula (Kincaid, Fish- burne, Rogers, & Chissom, 1975). Each Web page of the second Website contained a roughly 200—word passage consisting of 20 sentences, with each sentence averaging 8 words, and 1.5 syllables per word. The readability of the second Website was also at level 5 based on the F-K formula. In the F-K formula, a readability score of 5 means that fifth grade level students can read the materials with ease. In the study, these two Websites were counterbalanced: one half of the students read the first Website (e. g., Cheetah Web- site) first, then the second Website (Tasmanian Website), while the other half of the stu- dents read the passages in the reverse order (e.g., Tasmanian Website first, and then Cheetah Website). Before exploring and reading the first Website, students were given an instruction sheet to practice how to think aloud before they actually used the technique while looking for information and answering prompts and questions about the content of the Websites (see Appendix B). After practicing the think-aloud, five reading comprehension questions were given to students. These questions were designed to examine if students compre- hended the hypertexts with or without labels/chunks and navigation tabs. After answering these online reading comprehension questions, the researcher interviewed each student 62 regarding beliefs about the usability and accessibility of the content on the two Websites. These questions examined whether organized hypertexts with labels/chunks and naviga- tion tabs were easier for students to read—with regard to locating information and com- prehending the content—than less organized hypertexts, or vice versa. In the third measure (measure C), individual online search-engine tasks were im- plemented to investigate students’ Internet reading comprehension abilities and search strategies (see Appendix C). This measure took approximately 15 minutes and was con- ducted by the researcher. Two open-ended search questions were given: (1) “Why do you turn blue when you are cold?” and (2) “What is the diflerence between genotype and phenotype?” Students were asked to go to their preferred or favorite children’s search engine Website (e.g., http://kidsyahoocoml. h@://ww.Lklsclick.or http://nvgvrahoocomh http://kids.yam.com/) to look for answers. If they chose Midsyahoocomh they had four ways of searching for information within the Web- site: (1) search engine, (2) categories, (3) subject hierarchies, and (4) answering board; if they chose http://wwwkidscliclmgl, they had three methods: (1) search engine, (2) cate- gories, and (3) subject hierarchies; if they chose http://tw.yahoo.com/. they had three ways: (1) search engine, (2) search services (Web, answers, images, videos, blogs, shop- ping, dictionary), and (3) categories; if they selected http://kids.yam.com/. they had only two methods: (1) search engine, and (2) categories. As with the second measure, when students used different search terms to search for the open-ended questions, they were encouraged to think aloud to explain the steps and processes of the reading task. For ex- ample, they could think aloud to illustrate how and why they selected different search 63 terms, got the search results, located important information, and evaluated the Websites or Web pages. Finally, an individual structured, metacognitive interview (measure D) was ad- ministered to explore the students’ online reading strategy knowledge and thinking proc- esses as they read texts on the Internet (see Appendix D). This measure took approxi- mately 20 minutes and was administered by the researcher. These questions asked stu- dents about their pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading strategies, and how they made sense of texts, as well as how they searched for and evaluated Websites. For exam- ple, “pre-, during, and post-reading strategies” focused on students’ application of read- ing strategies including previewing, reading for understanding, remembering, and synthe- sizing information from the Websites. “Online information search & evaluation” asked about search term/keyword decisions, Website selection, Website search strategies, Web- site evaluation, and Website-related predictions. These interview questions examined the students’ online searching behaviors and reading strategies in different reading stages. Measurement and procedures. All of the literacy assessments were either group- administered (the first measurement) or individually administered (the other measure- ments) in school computer labs, libraries, or quiet rooms with Internet access. All as- sessments were counterbalanced across the two topics (e.g., Cheetah, Tasmanian Devil). Half of students received the assessments that presented questions about the cheetah first, and the other half of students received questions about the Tasmanian devil first, in order to control for the effect of topic order. The appropriateness and level of the measures was evaluated and determined by four experienced upper-elementary or middle school teach- ers, including both general and special educators from the U.S. and Taiwan. All the test- 64 ing directions, passages, and questions about literacy measures were read aloud to stu- dents to minimize difficulties with word recognition ability or reading fluency speed (Englert et al., 1991). Students were told to reread the passages as many times as they wished. Students’ writing mechanics (e.g., spelling, grammar) were not of much concern in the testing and scoring, although students read aloud the written sections of the texts that were illegible to the examiner. All of the interview responses and online activities from the computer screen were videotaped to see students’ non-verbal behaviors. Data Analysis Multiple analyses (quantitative & qualitative analyses) were employed in data analy- sis. This technique is used to triangulate the results and gather data fi'om multiple per- spectives and angles. Quantitative data. In order to answer the research questions related to students’ on- line Internet strategies and behaviors in relation to different organizational structures, data analysis included descriptive statistics and inferential analyses. Before running de- scriptives and frequencies, an independent samples T-test was first used to examine if there were differences among the groups of students in the two countries. Then, descrip- tive analysis was used to describe the aggregate results, means, and standard deviations of the frequency of responses on each literacy assessment. These literacy assessments included the scale of the questionnaire, correct answers of comprehension questions, time spent for task completion, number of strategies used, number of Web pages visited, and number of special features visited. Qualitative data. Several techniques were utilized to analyze the effects from stu- dents’ individual data. First, all of the interview responses were transcribed and ordered 65 from least to most sophisticated into a Word document. Second, verbal responses (inter- view replies) and non-verbal behaviors (online searches and selections) from all of the interview questions and online activities were analyzed and built into a multi-level coding system. This coding system was entered in an Excel codebook to clarify the multiple variables, such as (1) type of hypertext readers (knowledge seekers, feature explorers, and apathetic readers, as presented in the literature review), (2) number of strategies used (e.g., logical sequence of selection, systematic manner of acquisition, different search terms, search decisions, evaluation) (measures B, C, and D), (3) number of special fea- tures visited (e.g., hyperlinks, icons, audio clips, movies) (measure B), (4) number of Web pages visited (measure C), and (5) total time for each online search—engine task (measure C). All of the students’ activities were recorded by video cameras, and then specific be- haviors were coded and counted. In this present study, students could be sorted into mul- tiple categories of hypertext readers, if they met multiple definitions and requirements. The definition and requirements of type of hypertext readers was based on number of strategies used, number of special features visited, number of Web pages visited, and to- tal time for each online search-engine task (see Table 6). The definition of number of strategies used was calculated by the logical sequence of selection (clicking and reading information by order or sequence between two Websites), systematic manner of acquisi- tion (not randomly jumping by Web pages), different search terms, search decisions, and evaluation of Web pages. For example, students needed to follow the flow or design of Websites to read Web pages by the order of the navigation tabs; they needed to read Web pages in a systematic way, not just jump between random Web pages, and/or they needed 66 to use keywords to locate information rather than browse Web pages; they needed to ap- ply different search terms or combinations of terms when they searched for answers in search engines; they needed to make choices from among hundreds of search results pre- sented in search lists; and they also needed to evaluate which links or Websites were use- ful to enter to look for information. Table 6. Definition of Variables for Individual Measure in Qualitative Analysis Type lifegdyépertext # Strategies # Special Features # Web Pages Time Of TaSkS (Measure C) (Measure C) Knowledge Seeker > 2 Strategies > 2 Web Pages > 2 Minutes Feature Explorer > 2 Features > 2 Minutes Apathetic Reader 0 Strategy < 2 Features < 2 Web pages < 2 Minutes Third, grounded theory was adopted to analyze the interview transcripts, field ob- servations, and codebook based on the previous variables. The four general steps of this analysis were taken by the researcher as follows: (1) examined the data, (2) assigned la- bels to themes, (3) locked for common patterns across themes, and (4) compared themes across students (Glaser, 1992; Merriam, 1988). All the interview transcripts were read and examined line by line, and then searched and coded, sorted and re-coded. During this process the researcher wrote memos and assigned labels to themes. This line-by-line cod- ing provided the basis for a more in-depth analysis, increasing the depth of interpretation. The process was iterative and focused on the incidents that allowed for comparisons across students. 67 RESULTS Quantitative findings Developing new skills and strategies to read, comprehend, and respond to informa- tional texts on the Internet plays a key role in students’ academic learning especially in this new technology age. This study relied on quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the extent to which new reading comprehension skills and strategies beyond the traditional reading strategies are required on the Internet. The quantitative findings mainly came from all of the 119 students’ self-reported questionnaires. The questionnaires included general survey questions (i.e., online back- ground information, online reading strategies) and reading retelling tasks. Before running the descriptive statistics (descriptives and frequencies) to examine the Internet strategies and behaviors of students with or without LD, independent samples T-tests were per- formed to examine if there were any differences among the students in two different countries. The results suggested that there were not many significant differences between U.S. and Taiwanese students’ Internet strategies and behaviors, based on their self- reported questionnaires (see Appendix F), except for their reading materials (p < .01, Q2 in Appendix A, v2 in Appendix F), online locations (p < .01, Q3 in Appendix A, v2 in Appendix F), some options from Web page evaluation (p < .01, Q10 in Appendix A, v10 in Appendix F), an average of total words from the retelling passage without clear sub- topics (p < .01, Q15 in Appendix A, v1501 in Appendix F), and some options from read- ing strategies (p < .01, Q16-18 in Appendix A, v1601-l810 in Appendix F). For example, based on their personal ratings on a liken-type scale, the Taiwanese students seemed to 68 prefer to read from a computer screen, while the American students tended to prefer to read print materials. The above independent samples T-tests showed that there were not many significant differences between students in the two countries. It therefore seems plausible that none of these factors influenced the results obtained from the later reading comprehension tasks, online search activities, and metacognitive interview. Also, the research questions for this study did not address the issue of comparing students’ overall learning across the two countries, so the quantitative findings of the two groups (students’ with LD and their general education peers) are therefore presented in the following paragraphs in terms of the order of the research questions related to students’ online strategies and behaviors un- der different online organizational structures. Internet strategies and behaviors. From the 119 self-reported questionnaires, the results suggested several similarities and differences between the two groups of general education (GE) students and their peers with LD. First, when asking about their online experiences and background information, (1) 82% of GE students and 57% of students with LD usually read online at home; (2) 60% of GE students and 64% of students with LD prefer to read print materials (books, news- papers) rather than texts on a computer screen (see Figure 4); (3) 71% of GE students and 79% of students with LD have rim: written a blog; (4) 47% of GE students and 43% of students with LD have neye_r used e-mail; and (5) 51% of GE students and 57% of stu- dents with LD have we; used Instant Messenger, text messages, chat rooms, or message boards. 69 Reading Materials ele'E Computer Screen Print Books \ \\ 20 10 \\\\\ Ji— . ,_# ,——. ._, .7 _ _.... 7 . ,, ,Hz 7 a Figure 4. When you read for fun, do you prefer to read print materials (books, newspa- pers) or read from a computer screen? Second, when asked to rate their understanding and their skills with regard to read- ing comprehension, (1) 57% of the GE students rated themselves veg good at reading and understanding print materials (i.e., story books, textbooks, newspapers, magazines), but only 43% of them rated themselves as veg good at understanding online passages (i.e., news, blogs, Facebook, Websites, email); and (2) 57% of the students with LD rated themselves MK at reading and understanding print passages, but 43% of them rated themselves M at understanding online materials (see Figure 5). Although the popu- lation of students with LD was small, they mirrored the proportional breakdown of stu- dents who preferred print texts to online texts. The self-reported data might also suggest 70 that the majority students (57% GE/LD dropped to 43%) in this study find online texts more difficult to understand than print texts. 71 PrintComprehension 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 - .- " :I.—:l...-- 7‘44— ;.._:l7 0.00 I r Do not Not so good Just OK Good Very good know \‘\\\\V\ l 10.00 Internet Comprehension l 45.00 l 40.00 1 35.00 30.00 , 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 l 5.00 0.00 V i Do not Not so Just OK Good Very good know good mw\\\\\\\ l . Figure 5. Rate your understanding or skills to read & understand Print materials and ma- terials on the Internet. 72 Third, when asked about the advantage of the navigational features of Web pages, the differences between groups were less distinctive. 34% of the GE students rated them- selves gm at reading and understanding a Website with navigation tabs, but only 30% rated themselves m at understanding a Website without navigation tabs (students saw examples of types of “navigation tabs” before they were asked these questions). Similarly, 43% of the students with LD indicated that they are M at understanding a Website with navigation tabs, but 43% of them answered that they are M at understanding a Web- site without tabs (see Figure 6). The data from Figure 6 suggested that students with LD seemed to stand apart in terms of their greater confidence in reading with tabs. They were aware that Web pages with navigation tabs could aid their comprehension, because their ratings shifted to “Just OK” without tabs (from “Good” with tabs). For GE students, there is little bit less of a shifi from “Good” with tabs to “Good” without tabs. It might suggest that GE students were also aware of the difference and benefits of tabs, but they might apply some during- reading strategies to mend breakdowns in their comprehension while reading Web pages without navigation tabs. More discussion of this point will be presented in the following paragraphs. 73 -_ 59?? NEWER? I 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 1 I h\\\\\\\\' I Do not Not so good Just OK Good Very good know ___Beadwithqatlabs-.. 7 l I l l l l as f l 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 L \\\\\V\ 1 1 1 I 0.00 00 not Not so Just OK Good Very good L know good Figure 6. Rate your understanding or skill to read & understand one Website with or without navigation tabs. 74 There were other differences revealed'by the data. First, when asked about their on- line experiences and background information (see Figure 7-9), 49% of the general educa- tion (GE) students preferred asking their parents for help with their schoolwork, while only 29% of students with LD asked their parents for help with their schoolwork; at the same time, 28% of the general education (GE) students used the Internet to help with their schoolwork, while 36% of students with LD chose the Internet as their most useful method (see Figure 7). Further, 56% of the GE students had used the Internet for more than 3 years, while only 29% of students with LD had used the Internet for more than 3 years. For the GE students, 31% of them read online once per week (e.g., news, blogs, Facebook, Websites, emails), 25% of them read online two to three dgys per week, 10% of them read online once per day, 13% of them read online several times per day, and 20% of them m regularly read online. For the students with LD, 36% m regularly read online, 29% of them read online once per week, 7% of them read online w day, and 29% of them read online several times per day (see Figure 8). Finally, 39% of the GE students use the Internet to search for information once per week. while 58% of students with LD participated in this activity either once per week or severaflmes per day (29% each, see Figure 9). The above data also revealed a simple bimodal distribution or extreme differences within the LD group in terms of their online reading and searching patterns. A high percentage of students with LD relied on the Internet as their source of learning, and spent a large amount of time reading and searching for online information; on the other hand, a small group of students with LD did not develop online reading hab- its to regularly read information on the Internet (such as news, blogs, facebook, Websites, emails, etc.). 75 50 l/ fair” 40 l/ 3O —' . V a GE 20 ‘ LD 10 r ’ _. _ l o ‘ l l i l 1 Internet Library Parents Friends Other Figure 7. Which of the following is the most useful to you in helping with your school- work? 76 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Never Once per 2-3 days Once per Several week per week day times per day Figure 8. How frequently do you use the INTERNET to read (e.g., news, blogs, Facebook, Websites, emails)? 77 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Search for Information -/ ?——_E" figs Never Once per week 2-3 days per week Once per Several day times per day Figure 9. How frequently do you use the INTERNET in searching for information? 78 Second, when asked to rate their understanding and their skill during an online search, (1) 41% of the GE students rated themselves veg good at finding the information they wanted on the Internet, but only 34% of them indicated that they were M with the search results; however, 29% of the students with LD rated themselves veg good at finding information online, and 36% of them rated themselves as veg satisfied with the search results. The data revealed that although a higher percentage of GE students might be more likely to search for online information, they might not always find the informa- tion they want; on the other hand, some students with LD might frequently use the Inter- net to look for information, but they might not develop advanced abilities and skills to examine if the answers they found were correct or appropriate. Students with LD might be more likely to think the information they found was good and reliable. Organizational structure in online environments. From the 119 self-reported ques- tionnaires, the results also showed similarities and differences in terms of the application of online strategies with different hypertext organization between the two groups (GE students and their peers with LD). First of all, in order to examine if the students could comprehend one passage with- out clear tab headings, which often happens on Webpages, one paragraph containing two subtopics about Cheetahs was assigned to all the students; they were asked to read and write down possible names of tabs. Only 9% of the GE students could assign two correct navigation tabs to the text, but 45% of them could assign one correct navigation tabs; none of the students with LD correctly assigned two tabs, but 47% of them could assign one correct navigation tabs. The data suggested that both groups of GE students and stu- 79 dents with LD weak naming strategies. This meant that they did not assign correct, ap- propriate navigation tab names after they read passages. Second, when given a short passage with three u_ncle_ar subtopics about Cheetahs, all 119 students were asked to retell the passage given a blank piece of paper after reading the passage several times. To analyze and calculate details retold by students, two related details under one category or subtopic were counted as one chunk. The results suggested 66% of the GE students could recall either I or 2 chunks of related details, which meant they could identify and retell l or 2 subtopics from the passage; similarly, 66% of the students with LD could retell only I or even 0 chunk of details, which meant they could at most identify and recall 1 subtopic from the text. Besides the passage w_itlLut clear tabs, students were also presented with a short passage that contained a clear topic about Tasmanian Devils ’ appearance. Given this or- ganized and signaled passage (students were told the passage was about Tasmanian Dev- ils ’ appearance), GE students could retell 3.54 details on average from one passage m clear subtopics and 3.58 details on average from the other passages @911; clear subtop- ics; however, students with LD could recall only an average of 1.79 details from the pas- sage m clear subtopics, while they could retell an average of 2.36 details from the text _w_it_h one clear topic. This finding suggests that the students with LD in this study may closely resemble those studied in other research reports regarding the impact of passages without clear structure. In this study, there seemed to be a difference in favor of organized passages for students with LD. The reasons may be that such students have little metacognitive aware- ness of text structures, and this hinders their comprehension when they are left to their 80 own resources to infer text patterns (Taylor & Williams, 1983). Consequently, they have difficulties distinguishing between important and unimportant ideas (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Wilson & Rupley, 1997), developing relevant expectations or predictions for the related details that will follow a given text structure, and confirming the relationship be- tween a text statement and its supporting details (Englert, Stewart, & Hiebert, 1988). However, the finding from the GE students may diverge from findings reported by Taylor and Samuels (1983). In this present study, there was not too much difference in favor of organized passages for the fifth-grade GE students. Taylor and Samuels (1983) claimed that fifth- and sixth-grade “good” readers who made greater use of their text structure knowledge recalled more central information from well-organized expository passages, and they could not take advantage of the text structure when they were given randomly organized passages. In fact, the “good” readers in Taylor and Samuels’s (1983) study were all identified as reading on or above grade level as indicated by teacher judg- ment and placement in the basal reading series used in their school. Since this population consisted of more advanced readers, the finding may not be generalized to this current study. 81 Table 7. Online Reading Comprehension With Different Organizational Structures Task Chunk of Details GE LD 0 Chunk 15% (16/104) 33% (5/15) Retell 1 Chunk 33% (34/104) 33% (5/15) 2 Chunk 33% (34/104) 20% (3/15) 3 Chunk 19% (20/104) 14% (2/15) W/O AVG 3.58 Details AVG 1.79 Details Tab STDEV 2.944 STDEV 2.119 Dem“ With AVG 3.54 Details AVG 2.36 Details Tab STDEV 2.304 STDEV 2.098 Online Information Search. characteristics in terms of information search on the Internet. In the self-reported ques- tionnaires of all 119 students, for example, students were asked to fill out their search term/keyword/phrase that they would use to find information about cheetahs’ habitats. The results revealed that less than 50% of GE students (N = 104) and their peers with LD (N =15) used appropriate search terms to look for information in the search engines of the Websites (see Table 8). Most of them just indicated that they would search for the term “Cheetah(s)”. GE students and their peers with LD shared common Table 8. Online Search Strategies and Behaviors Task GE LD Search Term (Self-reported Questionnaire) 49% Correct (51/104) 47% Correct (7/ 15) 82 In addition, when they were surveyed about what would be helpful in finding useful Web pages, students with LD and their GE peers answered similarly. For instance, they all replied that they would read the title of the page (GE 77%, LD 53%) and the content (GE 73%, LD 67%) to evaluate Web pages or Websites when they searched on the Inter— net, and almost half of the students with LD (47%) even answered that they would check a Webpage’s authorship first. Online Reading Strategies. In the 119 self-reported questionnaires, students were surveyed about their online reading strategies—the before-, during-, and after-reading strategies they use for finding information and learning on the Internet. The data (Figures 10 - 12) showed several interesting findings regarding online reading strategies used by the GE students (N = 104) and by their peers with LD (N = 15). First, from their self-ratings, it appeared that students (especially the students with LD) rated that they had weaker before- and during-reading strategies when they read on the Internet. Both GE students and their grade-age peers with LD tended to read ever word in a hypertext passage (Figures 10 & 11). They did not distinguish before- and dur- ing-reading strategies, because they started reading from the beginning to the last of the passages. In addition, students with LD had difficulties in applying before-reading strate- gies because they tended to randomly read some passages without following any logical selection procedure or strategic order (47%), while GE students tended to apply some ad- vanced strategies, such as previewing the tabs and titles (55% & 47%, respectively), or thinking about their reading purposes and goals (52%, Figure 10). Also, GE students indicated that they applied more during-reading strategies, in comparison with the students with LD. They indicated that they used note-taking and lo- 83 cated main ideas (63% & 63%, respectively) while reading expository passages. In com- parison with GE students, the students with LD rated themselves lower in using during- reading strategies when they read on Websites (Figure 11). 73% of them (1 1/15) an- swered they would read every word on a Website. The data suggested that they browsed the Web pages verbatim or nearly verbatim. With regard to after-reading strategies, both GE students and their peers with LD performed better than with pre- and during-reading strategies. Students with LD preferred to print out online materials to read them on paper, and they engaged in more online searches for further research (53% & 53%, respectively). As for GE students, they were more likely to remember main ideas (63%), search for other related Websites (59%), and save Website URLs into their browser’s bookmarks (52%, Figure 12) so that they could retrieve them easily later on when they needed them. The above data uncovered that students had deficiencies in the areas of strategic application and performance, especially students with LD. GE students and their peers with LD did not demonstrate mature literacy strategies to ensure successful learning in online contexts. The reason for unsuccessful online learning is that those students had weak online pre-reading strategies, and they experienced difficulties in distinguishing pre- and during-reading strategies. Although their online post-reading strategies seemed to be better than their pre- and during-reading strategies, they still wasted a lot of time and applied limited strategies in their pre- and during-reading. 84 finesse? on... no mien»: gm :9» Mag 8: so» EB momwougm an; .3 onE .353 38 on.» “90259. 3259:... to! 3:05 3:353 3.033 303 Eases»: 323a .2585 is»: a: ._§EE>> e332 .3er can use. p p u p P . O k \r a .. \.\. ~ ._ . \x. m \ . |\I\. V \. m .\ t. o r \ k \\l 3 core; .E: .653 38 out an; 20:26:... on! 2.65 3528 c2828 Ea? 3235 3032.... .26 00:20 3032.. 3: zoom 2.23;; Ga any: Eaves: E26 v03. 85 0:303 05 use so» 333 3: so» 53 momwoagm 3&5 .: 03mm Ea; 8&3 no» 3 8 33.. £36.22: 302 52: 2:62“ 083:3 550.8 203 2: RE ESE a :2 a .68 .35 883 £8 95 fiasco: 5...! 28°22. c9... 23. . o ., . N ., . W\ .. ,. . V E \ - o _ . . \\ - y 2 l \ NH 9 canon. to; 0:5» 638 883.. 23.229: 80! 833..“ 3:85. 8.80.8 203 as 5.. case a :2 a :8 is 52. 883 as: 93 e9 882 E Rs. 2585 r20 33. E conun— 86 8.303 05 wage swam 30> gm om: so» :5 mommfiabm on; .N. 0.5%.”. 3:303 87 :32... 3333.. {25.02. «=83 Son. 52.. 23.8 9.2525 :35 x3 898 So as... gorges 228:0... =33. confines. .8538 3.5.5.2 n83 . lirl ll i i l o lfi l J ~ l- t\ 4.351 \K ' .. u .\ a \\ :02 Q. on 23>... «8.30.! 95633.. £95.08 in 05 «:8»... noon. ENE “.328 9.2228 835 .2 2:3. 53%.. :38 3e; c£s__# :33. .8553. 3.5.58 sense: 3.3 Qualitative findings The previous section, quantitative findings, was based on students’ self-reported questionnaires. This section, qualitative findings, presents the findings from individual measures: online reading comprehension tasks, online search activities, and metacogni- tive interviews. In other words, besides the quantitative analyses, this study also relied on qualitative methods to evaluate the extent to which new reading comprehension skills and strategies beyond the traditional reading strategies are required on the Internet. The par- ticipants in these individual measures were 11 general education students and 14 students with LD. Internet strategies and behaviors. All of the selected students (N = 25) had prior experiences using computers and being online to look for information. Most of the stu- dents indicated that they had not been taught any Internet strategies (i.e., reading, search- ing for information, using search engines). Three students who all attended the same school were the exception to this general trend. This school’s media specialist expressed that she taught a few online strategies based on her own online experiences. For example, she taught students how to use keywords to look for related information in Googlecom. Among the three interviewed students from this school, only one student with LD4 had more advanced search strategies, as the media specialist pointed out. He said: When you look for information in Google, you do not need to type every word there [he pointed out the search engine]. You only type the most im- portant words from the question, no need to put the whole question, be- cause “why” gives you the question, “do you tum blue” gives the specific answer (Boy, 5“1 Grade, LD, US). 4 The mother of this LD student with more extensive knowledge and strategies for online reading was his elementary school teacher; she reported paying close attention to his studies and the school’s curriculum. 88 When asked about his search results, he also explained that: I’d only read [the search results from the search list] if the key- words [he typed in the search engine] from the question are in the title [from the search results]... When he was asked how to quickly find answers from a Web page or Website, he said: ...I’d only read the first paragraph [in the Web page] because it will tell the main ideas... From the response of this student with LD, we can infer that he had some advanced search strategies, but that he lacked other reading strategies. The first finding was that he could apply search strategies because he did not retype the question word-by-word. He seemed to realize that some function words were not helpful in the search; also, he under- stood the relationship of keywords, such as question words (why, what, when, how), to the main ideas from the question. The second finding was that he read only titles contain— ing the highlighted keywords for which he searched, and he skipped titles without his keywords. This was an advanced search strategy, though it might not be sufficient for ap- plying search strtaegies. He did not take time to evaluate the Websites based on their de- scriptions and URLs before clicking to visit Web pages. Also, when unsure about the Website’s safety, he would click “cached”5 rather than entering it directly. The third find- ing was that he did not demonstrate mature online reading strategies, especially in terms of his before-reading strategies. He only read the first paragraph, but did not preview the 5 Most search-engine Websites (like Google or Yahoo) take a snapshot of each page the, search engine ex- amines and “cache” (i.e. store) that version as a back-up. The cached version of the Webpage is what search-engine Websites use to judge if a page is a good match for a searcher’s query. Clicking on the “cached” link of that web page, instead of the most current version of the page, is useful if the original page is unavailable because of (1) lntemet congestion, (2) a down, overloaded, or just slow website, (3) recently removed page from the Web, or (4) a registration or subscription requirement. 89 tabs, titles, sub-titles, headings, sub-headings, tables, charts, images, or highlighted phrases to get a quick idea of the Webpage or passage. This seems to confirm the overall group finding that students had weak online pre-reading strategies because they typically start reading the Website when they entered the Web pages. Organizational structure in online environments. After the group measures (ques- tionnaires and retelling tasks), 25 students were randomly selected to participate in the more in-depth reading tasks and interview pertaining to their online reading comprehen- sion activities. First they were directed to read two Websites about animals — one with clearly labeled tabs and the other without any tabs. Then, they were directed to locate an- swers to some content-focused questions about the two animals, assign tabs to two Web pages, and retell passages from the two Websites. The data showed that only four GE students (11 = 11, 36%) and four students with LD (11 = 14, 29%) could assign two correct tabs to the Web page without tabs. The other remaining students either assigned one correct tab or irrelevant tabs to the paragraphs. The results here closely matched the quantitative results, but the percentage rate of stu- dents was a little bit higher than in the quantitative results (9% of GE could assign two correct navigation tabs to the text, but none of the students with LD correctly assigned two tabs). Since the quantitative method was implemented through paper-based question- naires, while the qualitative method was administrated on the computer screen, the quan- titative and qualitative findings side-by-side may explain that it may be easier for GE stu- dents and students with LD to identify chunks of organized ideas or identify categories when reading hypertexts than when reading paper-based texts. Still, as mentioned in the quantitative findings, this qualitative data suggested that both groups of GE students and 90 students with LD had weak chunking and tab-naming strategies; they had trouble assign- ing relevant, appropriate navigation tab names to passages, no matter whether they were reading paper-based texts or online texts. The other result that echoed the quantitative results involved the retelling tasks. The GE students could retell an average of 2.5 details from the Web page without tabs, but 4.5 details from the one with a tab. Similarly, the students with LD could retell an average of 2.2 details from the Web page without tabs, but 2.8 details from the one with a tab. This qualitative finding may suggest that GE students may benefit significantly more from tabbed Web page than from untabbed ones, while students with LD may benefit more from paper-based passages with clear subtopics than from ones with unclear subtopics or unclear structure. But again, as discussed in the literature review, the text recall of the “good” and “poor” comprehenders was similar when they were given randomly orga- nized passages because neither group could take advantage of the text structure (Taylor & Samuels, 1983). Both groups of “good” and “poor” comprehenders need to apply knowl- edge of text organization to enhance their comprehension performance, because research shows it permits them to remember more chunks of organized ideas. After the online reading comprehension tasks, students were asked several open- ended questions regarding the two Websites. Most of the students, 10 GE students (91%) and nine students with LD (64%), explicitly reported during the metacognitive interview that, when looking for information on the Website without clear tabs, they experienced more difficulties and spent more time locating answers. The responses of all GE and LD students were similar. One of the GE students said: 91 The “Devil” Website [the one without tabs] has too much different infor- mation in one paragraph. It’s too confusing... It seems to put several top- ics in a text... The “Cheetah” Website [the one with tabs] has tabs or sec- tions for different paragraphs. It has information in an [specific] area, like food... But the Devil one has information about food in different pages... (Girl, 5th Grade, GB, US) Another GE student commented: The “Devil” Website [the one without tabs] is really hard to find informa- tion because it has no tabs and too many arrows to [move and] read text, but for the “Cheetah” Website [the one with tabs], I can click tabs to easily find answers to easily remember main points and details... (Boy, 5th Grade, GE, TW) One of the students with LD indicated: The Cheetah Website has topics and titles, but the Devil one only has left or right arrows [to move to the next section of the text to read]... (Boy, 5th Grade, LD, US) Another student with LD similarly replied: The “Cheetah” Website has a sequence... it is easier to find [answers]... The “Cheetah” Website has tabs... The “Devil” Website has the next or forwarding icons [arrows]... The “Devil” Website is hard to find informa- tion [Interviewer asked, “ Why? Could you please explain more? ”] Be- cause it has no tabs... [Interviewer asked, “How about the Cheetah Web- site? ”] I can click tabs [on the "Cheetah" Website] to find answers eas- ily... (Boy, 5th Grade, LD, US) Grounded theory was adopted to analyze the qualitative data from all the interview transcripts, including from the above four replies. The steps of this analysis were taken as follows: the researcher (I) examined all the data, (2) assigned labels to themes, (3) looked for common patterns across themes, and (4) compared themes across students (Glaser, 1992; Merriam, 1988). Starting with the above four students as examples, all the inter- 92 view transcripts were read and examined line by line. Codes or labels were then assigned to recurring words and phrases (tabs, sections, topics, titles in different pages V.S. arrows, icons, several topics in a text), and these were sorted and re-coded (tabs V.S. no tabs). During this time, researcher memos were written (Click tabs to find information is easier than move arrows to read text, especially in the hypertexts without tabs), and coding la- bels were gradually grouped into themes (experienced more difliculties, spent more time locating answers). The initial line-by-line coding provided the basis for a more in-depth analysis, increasing the depth of the interpretation. At the end of the above-described qualitative analysis, the data suggested that those students found it to be more time efficient to find answers on the Website with clear tabs (i.e., food, habitat, appearance, extinction, family), because they could quickly under- stand the context and get the gist from the tabs showing on the left side of the Website. The Website without any tabs did not allow this. Also, when students read untabbed hy- pertexts, especially ones with arrows or icons that they needed to click to move from one passage to another, the comprehension process imposed an additional cognitive load, so that they could not take advantage of hypertext structure to remember more chunks of organized ideas. Online Information Search. GE students and their classmates with LD also had different search strategies, behaviors, selection procedures, and preferences when they were asked to find information on the Internet. All of the 25 selected students were asked to engage in a search task. The search question that was asked was: “Why do you turn blue when you are cold?” Most of the students (Total n = 17 students": 10 LD, 7 GE) re- 6 Typed full-blown question: n = 17 (10 LD, 7 GE), Typed keywords: n = 6 (2 LD, 4 GE), Do not Know: it = 2 (2 LD, 0 GE) 93 typed the full-blown question (in the form of a sentence) from the original interview ques- tion in the search engine box7, and did not delete the function words (e.g., do, you, are) or modify the search terms in conducting their search. In addition, only some students with LD (n = 2, 14%) and their GE peers (n = 4, 36%) chose to use different keywords in their search, such as “turn blue when cold” or “why no blood, cold weather” to look for differ- ent answers in search engines. The data suggested that fifth- and sixth-grade students had limited online search strategies. They had difficulties in applying different combinations of keywords in search engine boxes, and did not know that function words or full-blown sentences were not necessary or required in a search engine. The results also suggested another finding about the search strategies and behaviors of GE students and their peers with LD. For example, only three GE students (27%) and two students with LD (14%) chose to click “Next” to view a second page of search re- sults, which meant that they only read the first 10 search results from the first page. Fur- thermore, the GE students on average spent 6 minutes to locate answers, while the stu- dents with LD on average spent only 2.8 minutes. Similarly, the GE students on average clicked and read 1.6 pages from the search list, while students with LD on average read only 0.85 pages to finish the task. Almost all of the interviewed students could find an- swers, either correct or wrong ones. However, there were two students with LD (14%) who answered that they did not know what the answer was or how to find answers. The above data also suggested that, on average, students with LD spent most of the time searching for information, while most of the GE students spent most of the time reading the Web pages before they ended their search. 7 The data showed that 81% of Taiwanese students used the search engine at http://tw.yahoo.com/, while 100% of American students used the search engine at http://www.eoogle.com/ 94 In addition, when finding answers on the Internet, five GE students (45%) and three students with LD (21%) chose “Yahoo Answers” or “Wiki Answers” to be their answer source. The data suggested that those students desired a quick answer because all the an- swers were pre-selected and showed on the top Web page of “Yahoo Answers?” or “Wiki Answers,” even though those answers were not 100% correct. It seemed that they had limited skills and strategies in evaluating and organizing online information, because they relied on unreliable and unauthorized online sources. Furthermore, only five GE students (45%) and three students with LD (21%) clicked “Suggested Search Results” or “Related Searches” when they found they spelled wrong words or simply followed the search list’s suggestions for further search. Using “Suggested Search Results” or “Related Searches” is a useful online search strategy, because this search-engine feature helps online infor- mation seekers get suggestions (prompts or hints) from search engines (like Google or Yahoo) to find answers quickly, instead of visiting erroneously retrieved pages or finding irrelevant information. For example, when users mistyped Web addresses, the “Suggested Search Results” feature would show suggested pages below the search page. For “Related Searches,” most search engines showed related searches with correctly spelled words that could be useful in terms of correcting or refining a search query. For example, you may have limited knowledge about “marketing,” but you may want to find information about ”marketing strategies.” When you type “marketing” at Microsoft Windows Live Search (or Yahoo or Google), you will see a list of “related searches”: “Internet market- ing,” “direct marketing,” “search engine marketing,” and so on. In this case, Windows 8 “Yahoo! Answers” is a forum or bulletin that everyone can find and share information. Everyone can ask questions on any topic, get answers from real people, and share his/her insights and experiences. Ques- tion initiator will choose the “best answer” among replies, so that the best answer will be listed on the top of the Web page. 95 Live Search finds popular queries that contain your keyword. However, in this present study, most of the fifth- and sixth-grade students (55% GE, 79% LD) did not use these online search strategies. They just typed, and retyped full-blown sentences into the search engine boxes, and wasted a lot of time finding irrelevant answers. Table 9. Online Search Strategies and Behaviors Task GE LD 73% Sentence 79% Sentence . (8/11) (ll/14) Search Question 27% Keyword 7% Keyword (1/14) (3/1 1) 14% Don’t know (2/14) Search Time 6 Mins 2.8 Mins Search List “Next” Page 27% (3/11) 14% (2/14) Search Page 1.6 pages 0.85 page Yahoo/Wiki An- 45% (5/11) 21.4% (3/14) swers General Web 55% (6/11) 64.2% (9/14) Search Selection pages (Google/Yahoo Do not know 0 14.4% (2/14) “Suggested Search 45% (5/11) 21% (3/14) Results” /”Related Searches” After the online search task, students were asked additional questions. The first question was: “When you used a search engine, how did you decide which search terms or keywords to use?” Five of the total 25 students (20%: 4 LD, 1 GE) answered they would type questions that were given to them (full-blown sentences); 17 of the total 25 students (68%: 8 LD, 9 GE) answered they would only type relevant keywords in the search engine based on the assigned question. However, when executing their online search task, 12 of the above 17 students did in fact type full-blown sentences in the search 96 engine box, but not keywords. It seemed that although they understood that they did not need to type every word from the assigned question into the search engine box, they still intuitively typed hill-blown sentences in the search engine. The second question was: “How did you decide which Website you wanted to ex- plore further from the search list? How did you know if you wouldn’t find the answer on a site?” Eight of the total 25 students (32%: 6 LD, 2 GE) replied that they would only read titles from the search results page, five students (20%: 3 LD, 2 GE) said they would read both titles and descriptions, two students (32%: 1 LD, 1 GE) said they would read descriptions only, and two students (32%: 1 LD, 1 GE) said they would click every link on the search results page. Only three of the total 25 students stated multiple answers. One student said: Yahoo is a good source... I would say I would read these two lines [stu- dent pointed to titles and descriptions on the search results 'page]. Oh, I would only click the first link from the search results (Girl, 5 Grade, GB, US). Another student replied: I would only read the blue words, [Interviewer prompted: titles, descrip- tions, or Web address], titles, especially the links that have been clicked (Boy, 6“1 Grade, LD, US). The other student said: I would read these two things [Interviewer asked: the blue lines, black lines, or green lines ?], the blue and black words, then click each link, but skip unrelated links. [Interviewed asked: what do you mean “unrelated links ”?] It is just unimportant ones. You wouldn’t find information there (Boy, 5th Grade, LD, TW). 97 The third question in the interview was: “As you are entering this Website [point to site from the students ’ search list], how did you find your answers quickly?” Seven of the 25 students indicated that they would read every word from the Website (28%: 6 LD, 1 GE), five students (20%: 2 LD, 3 GE) would read tabs, headings, or subheadings, and two students would choose “Yahoo Answers.” One of these two students said: I entered one “Yahoo Answer” Web page because I could read the "Best Answer" from the top of the Web page to get the answers quickly (Girl, 5th Grade, GB, US) From the above data (i.e., observation, metacognitive interview, and online activi- ties), the 25 interviewed students could be classified into three main kinds of hypertext readers: 16 knowledge seekers (11 GE, 5 LD), 10 feature explorers (4 GE, 6 LD), and 5 apathetic readers (0 GE, 5 LD). In the present study, students could be sorted into multi- ple categories, if they met the multiple definitions and requirements of the different types of hypertext readers (see Table 6 & 10). As described in the qualitative data section, the definition of each type of hypertext reader was based on number of strategies used, num- ber of special features visited, number of Web pages visited, and total time for each on- line search-engine task (see Table 6). Number of strategies used was defined through a combination of the l_ogical sequence of selection. systematic manner of acquisition. (ii ferent search terms, search decisions. and evaflttion of Web pagg. For example, stu- dents needed to follow the flow or design of Websites to read Web pages by the order of the navigation tabs (]Qgi_cgl sequence of selection); they needed to read Web pages in a systematic way, not just jump between random Web pages, and/or they needed to use keywords to locate information rather than browse Web pages (fitematic manner of ac- quisition); they needed to apply different search terms or combinations of terms when 98 they searched for answers in search engines; they needed to make choices from among hundreds of search results (search decisions); and they also needed to evaluate which links or Websites were useful and relevant to enter to look for information (evaluation of Web pages). The first kind of hypertext reader, the knowledge seeker, uses strategies to pursue related information online. This reader reads Webpages in a logical sequence and locates information in a systematic way. In the present study, if any student applied any two of the online strategies described in the above paragraph, he or she was counted as a knowl- edge seeker. The results suggested that all GE students (100%) could be categorized as “knowledge seekers” because they clicked and read Web pages according to the order of the tabs listed or the sequence of the search results, they tried different search terms, and they made search decisions between search results. For example, one GE student (Boy, 5th Grade, US) spent four minutes reading Web pages and read according to the order of the navigation tabs. He also followed his own logical sequence in reading Web pages, instead of jumping between random Web pages. Another GE student (Girl, 5th Grade, TW) tried three different search terms (“cold, turn blue,” “pale, cold,” and “cold weather, body”) when she searched for answers in search engines. After that, she made selections from among the search results to select two Websites to enter to locate information. However, no GE student in this present study could use keywords (i.e., Firefox: “Edit” > “Find”) to locate information within a Webpage. GE students just browsed Web pages and read every word (or most of the words) from paragraphs or passages. The second kind of reader, the feature explorer, interacts extensively with computer- ized media (i.e., graphics, audio features, video files). He or she is curious about the mul- 99 timedia features in hypertexts and invests more time than other readers in understanding how multimedia elements relate to the text. The findings indicated that four GE students (36%) and their six peers with LD (43%) were classified into this subtype. These students clicked the multimedia elements (i.e., sounds, videos, maps, pictures, tables) on the Web- sites. For example, one student (Boy, 5th grade, GE, US) watched a short video clip from the “Video & Sound” section of the “Tasmanian Devil” Website to learn more about their behaviors, and then clicked the “Map” to reveal the animal’s habitat; another student (Boy, 5th grade, LD, TW) laughed at one picture on the “Cheetah” Website, and summa- rized the information from a Table describing the cheetah’s size. In fact, all four of the feature explorers from the GE group and three of the six fea- ture explorers from the LD group were also classified as knowledge seekers (see Table 10 & Figure 13). The above data regarding the first two types of hypertext readers suggested that when students knew that their purpose was to meaningfully locate information, they clicked the multimedia features, and they used more advanced strategies to search for in- formation from multiple Websites by accessing the hyper-links associated with those pages. They explored the multi-media features of the Websites, while they simultane- ously sought relevant information about their topic and relevant sub-topics. The third kind of reader, the apathetic hypertext user, does not actively or strategi- cally pursue information or explore computerized media. He or she applies limited strate- gies to acquire information. He/she reads without following any logical order and without making meaningful selections, and explores facts randomly. Five students with LD (36%) were sorted into this category because they did not apply mature strategies to logically locate information, nor did they keep track of their findings, evaluate the Websites, or 100 patiently read more pages before they declared their conclusion or answer. Two of the five students (14.4%) classified as apathetic readers responded immediately that they could not find answers and then gave up quickly. In order to analyze and examine whether or not these five students were computer users, their self-report surveys were re- examined. The results showed that four of the students had been going on the Internet for at least two years (two had more than three years of Internet experience), while another had started using the Internet within the last six months; three of them read online materi- als several times per day, while the other two students read online once per week. This suggested that even though they had been online for a period of time or read more fre- quently, they still had difficulties in developing systematic, logical strategies to pursue online information. Table 10. Online Reader Type Reader T e GE LD yp (# of persons) (# of persons) Knowledge Seeker 11 (100%) 5 (36%) Reader Type (Sear Ch Task/ Feature Explorer 4 (36%) 6 (43%) Reading) Apathetic Reader 0 (0%) 5 (36%) 101 interviews showed that the students with LD and some of the GE students did not demon- strate mature or effective online pre-reading strategies when they read in the online envi- ronment. All student responses from the metacognitive interviews were transcribed and then coded, as shown in the following table (see Table 11). In response to the first ques- tion: “What strategies did you use before you started reading for information on this 9999‘!" (11 GE, 5 LD) Uses strategies to pursue related information online Reads hypertext in a logical se- quence Locates information in a systematic way Applies different search terms Makes search decisions Evaluates Web pages :5 PN?‘ Figure 13. Online Reader Types derived from from 25 Interviewed Students Online Reading Strategies. Knowledge seeker (4 GE, 6 LD) tures in hypertexts companying text Apathetic hypertext user (5 LD) Does not pursue information Explores computerized media Applies limited strategies to acquire information Reads without logical order and without making meaningful selec- tions Explores facts randomly 102 Feature explorer Is curious about multimedia fea- 2. Invests more time in understanding how multimedia relate to the ac- 3. Clicks multimedia elements on Websites in a purposeful way The qualitative data from the structured metacognitive Website?” 20 of the students (76%) answered that they just read every word from the Web pages. Only two GE students (18%) answered that they read the tabs, titles, and pic- tures before starting to read more thoroughly; one GE student (9%) indicated he would read only the first sentence of each paragraph; one student with LD (7%) said he would read only the first paragraph on Web pages. 24 of the students provided only a single pre- reading strategy. The outlier was a GE student (Girl, 5th Grade, US) who provided two strategies. She said: “I read titles, pictures, and then the first sentence of paragraphs from Web pages.” These qualitative results regarding the online pre-reading strategies of the 25 inter- viewed students were closely matched with their quantitative data. Those students who answered that they would read every word on a Web page also checked “read every word from the Website” on their questionnaires. Other answers from the questionnaires closely echoed answers given during the interviews. For example, the previously mentioned fe- male student checked “read first sentence of each paragraph,” “glance over the Website’s tabs,” “use keywords to locate information,” and “randomly select some paragraphs to read” on her questionnaire. Her interview answers were similar, though she did not in- clude all of her survey answers, such as “use keywords to locate information” and “ran- domly select some paragraphs to read.” Similarly, 20 of the interviewed students checked “read every word from the Website,” “use keywords to locate information,” “think about why and what I should read,” “preview the Website’s title, headings, & subheadings,” or/and “glance over the Website’s tabs” on their questionnaires, but in their metacogni- tive interview they said only that they would “read every thing from the Website.” The data suggested that fifih- and sixth-grade students might have some knowledge of pre- 103 reading strategies in paper-based contexts, but that it might be hard for them to transfer those strategies to hypertext contexts. Furthermore, none of the GE students and their peers with LD provided evidence of complete, mature online pre-reading strategies. For example, good pre-reading strategies in the online environment could include planning or setting up a reading purpose; quickly scanning the hypertext from its title, headings, pictures, and graphics; previewing hyperlinks; and also searching for information or locating Websites using keywords or related terms in a systematic manner. Table 11. Online pre-reading strategies of selected GE students and their grade-age peers with LD Online Pre-Reading Strategy # of Persons Read everything 12 LD (86%), 8 GE (73%) 20 (76%) Read titles, tabs, pictures 2 GE (18%) 2 (8%) Read lSt sentence 1 GE (9%) 1 (4%) Read 18! paragraph 1 LD (7%) 1 (4%) Some sentences 1 GE (9%) l (4%) No strategy 1 LD (7%) l (4%) When students were asked, “What strategies did you use while you were reading the Websites to understand and remember the information?” similar results were obtained. 76% of the students (11 LD, 8 GE) answered that they read every word from the Web- sites (see Table 12). Only two GE students (18%) replied they would read main ideas fiom the Web pages; one GE student (9%) indicated he would pick some paragraphs to read; one student with LD (7%) said he would read only the first paragraph on a Web 104 page. Every student asked this question provided only a single strategy (no one named multiple strategies). As with the pre-reading strategies, the above-described qualitative results regarding online during-reading strategies closely matched the quantitative data, though the two sets of data diverged on certain points. In their self-report surveys, it seemed that fifth- and six-grade students had some knowledge of during-reading strategies, though it might be harder for them to apply every one of these strategies to their online reading. For ex- ,9 ‘6 ample, one student on his survey checked “read every word from the Website, ran- domly select some paragraphs to read,” “read first sentence of each paragraph,” “locate 9, 6‘ main ideas, click every link & multimedia,” and “copy and paste information from the Website to a Word document,” but he provided only a subset of these responses during his metacognitive interview. This student sai the following: I read the first para aph from the Websites because it will talk about the main ideas (Boy, 5 Grade, LD, US). In fact, none of the interviewed students gave evidence of complete, advanced on- line during-reading strategies. For example, online during-reading strategies may include noticing hypertext structure and main ideas, applying non-linear, non-sequential, and non-hierarchical strategies of thinking, and using visual literacy skills to comprehend and evaluate multimedia components. 105 Table 12. The online during-reading strategies of selected GE students and their grade- age peers with LD Online During-Reading Strategy # of Persons Read everything 11 LB (79%), 8 GE (73%) 19 (76%) Read main ideas 2 GE (18%) 2 (8%) Read some paragraphs 1 GE (9%) l (4%) Read lSt paragraph 1 LD (7%) l (4%) Do not know 2 LD (14%) 2 (8%) Finally, students were asked, “What strategies do you use atic; you finished reading the three Websites?” 76% of the students (n = 19: 9 LD, 10 GE) indicated that they would read several times to remember the passages, either reading the passages on the computer screen or printing them out to read them on paper, while 44% of the interviewed students (n = 11: 6 LD, 5 GE) said they would summarize the gist of what they read on a piece of paper or in a Word processor; three students (12%: 1 LD, 2 GE) indicated they would ask themselves questions to self-test; two students (8%: 1 LD, 1 GE) answered that they would save good Websites’ addresses into their Internet Bookmarks (see Table 13). One of the GE students said: I would read some hard paragraphs again and again until I get it (Boy, 5th Grade, GE, US). Another GE student indicated: I would say I took notes after reading, and then wrote reports (Girl, 5th Grade, GB, US). Also, one student with LD9 replied: 9 This student with LD was the one mentioned earlier in the “Internet strategies and behaviors” section. 106 I printed out the pages to read, maybe sometimes highlighted, and then wrote it [the gist or main ideas]... oh, I also saved it to my Internet book- marks (Boy, 5th Grade, LD, US). Echoing the quantitative data, the qualitative data showed that fifih- and sixth-grade students had more knowledge and strategies in the area of online after-reading strategies, as compared with their pre- and during-reading strategies. They could save their favorite Websites or Web pages as Internet bookmarks and search for related Websites for further research. Also, 12 of the students (48%: 5 LD, 7 GE) provided two online after-reading strategies. However, none of the students indicated how to evaluate the accuracy or trustworthiness of the Websites they searched for. This data also closely echoed the data showing that fifih- and sixth-grade students looked for quick answers in the “Yahoo An- swers” or “Wiki Answers,” but did not evaluate the Websites’ trustworthiness and accu- racy. When students can easily get all kinds of information on the Internet, teaching them to have good evaluation abilities for online information is an important topic for our edu- cators to focus on. 107 Table 13. The online post-reading strategies of selected GE students and their grade-age peers with LD Online Post-Reading Strategy # of Persons Read again 7 LD (50%), 4 GE (36%) 11 (44%) Read several times to recite every- 1 LD (7%), 5 GE (45%) 6 (24%) thing Write down on a piece of paper 4 LD (29%), 3 GE (27%) 7 (28%) Write or edit in the Word processor 2 LD (14%), 3 GE (27%) 5 (20%) Print out to read 3 LD (21%), 1 GE (9%) 4 (16%) Ask myself questions to test myself 1 LD (7%), 2 GE (18%) 3 (12%) Save the Websites’ URLs to the In- 1 LD (7%), 1 GE (9%) 2 (8%) temet “Bookmarks” Highlight the passage (after printing 1 LD (7%) l (4%) it out) Do not know 1 LD (7%) l (4%) 108 DISCUSSION While many research studies have examined different aspects of online reading, most of them have focused on reading within a single Website (Zhang & Duke, 2008). This study investigated online reading and comprehension strategies used by students across multiple Websites, in the way that online readers usually read and search for in- formation from different Websites, following external and internal hyperlinks as well as relying on search engines. The purpose of this study was to address one major research question: How do up- per-elementary students with LD and their general education peers in the United States and Taiwan approach the comprehension process in informational literacy tasks involving hypertext environments? This main research question was sub-divided into four minor questions: 1. What are their Internet strategies and behaviors? 2. How do they perceive and utilize the organizational structure provided in on- line environments? 3. How do they search for information using the Internet? 4. What reading strategies do they utilize before, during, and after an informa- tional literacy task in a hypertext format? Internet uses and behaviors. In 2009, most fifth- and sixth-grade students with LD have had opportunities to use computers to access the Internet. The results suggested that the fifih- and sixth-grade students with LD in this study preferred to use the Internet to cope with their homework, while their grade-level GE peers tended to ask their parents for help in completing homework. This result was significant because it revealed an in- 109 teresting fact. Recent research reports have suggested that American youth spend more time on the Internet than they do on any other single activity and regard the Internet as their primary and most useful resource in helping them with their schoolwork (Gee, 2003; Lenhart, Simon, & Graziano, 2001; Levin & Arafeh, 2002). Even for those students with LD who spent more time than average on the Internet completing their schoolwork, this study suggested that they still had limited skills and abilities to search and comprehend online hypertexts. These results suggested that the upper-elementary and lower-middle school students were not taught and/or had not acquired necessary Internet strategies and skills, such as how to use appropriate keywords or terms in search engines, how to evalu- ate search results, and how to apply other online reading strategies. Students need addi- tional literacy strategies to help them access and comprehend online texts and thrive as students, citizens, and life-long learners in a world that is increasingly online. The results also showed that the students with GE and their peers with LD had more opportunities to use computers and read online at home than they did at school. The rea- son may be that home computer use is much more prevalent than school computer use. In fact, students often had opportunities to use computers in their school library or computer labs. However, most media specialists and English language arts teachers in the students’ schools did not seem to devote sufficient time to teaching online reading and search strategies to the students. This claim is based on the responses that students gave to ques- tions that inquired about their past instructional history, as well as items that examined their skill in applying appropriate strategies to access the content of hypertexts. Overall, the data suggested that fifih- and sixth-grade students had developed “strategies” through trial and error. All of the “strategies” they used came from their own 110 experiences. Furthermore, students preferred to read printed materials rather than online information for leisure and entertainment, possibly because they had not been taught how to transfer their reading strategies from print texts to hypertexts, which influenced their online reading comprehension. (One fifth-grade, male student with LD indicated that he would rather print out Web pages to read so that he could highlight and take notes on pa- per). All students, including GE students and their peers with LD, felt less confident and expressed lower self-efficacy regarding reading Websites without tabs, because they had difficulty inferring the main ideas and sub-topics within expository materials. Further- more, students were generally not satisfied with their search results, because their online search “strategies” were not sufficient to help them get correct, quick answers. Online organizational structures. Both the students with LD and the GE students agreed that navigation tabs within Websites were a key factor that influenced their search process and reading comprehension on the Internet. When Websites or Web pages lacked appropriate tabs or organizational cues, the non-linear nature and unclear structure con- fused the students, who often misunderstood the passages’ subtopics or subtitles. In digi- tal environments, texts are ofien very open-ended and can be read, for different purposes, along a number of different paths. Consequently, students have to be even more meta- cognitive and directed in their executive search and comprehension processes; otherwise, they may become disoriented (Heller, 1990; Jonassen & Wang, 1990; Schroeder, 1994) and confused by the texts they are reading. Students in this study seemed to be aware of these difficulties and of their own limitations in directing their comprehension process. In general, the scope of the navigation space, the abundance of choices represented by mul- tiple hyperlinks, and the variety of printed and graphical information (i.e., graphics, an- 111 imations, multimedia, texts) makes the Internet a more challenging reading environment for Internet readers, as it imposes a greater cognitive load (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). Furthermore, the results from the present study suggested that the unmarked and un- flagged hypertexts were more difficult for online readers to process. When the online readers were presented with unorganized and unlabeled online passages (i.e., Websites without navigation tab labels), their comprehension recall suffered. Those students missed important main ideas because the related details were not chunked together or la- beled as categories. This was especially true for the students with LD. These students had difficulty in identifying the main ideas and the related details which were internally re- lated through the text structure. Structural cues were one of the elements that students with LD had limited performance in retelling and summarizing, and recent research shows that missed structural cues have especially adverse consequences for the compre- hension of informational texts (Englert et al., 2009). Many researchers have suggested that difficulties comprehending less structured hy- pertext are related to the non-linearity of hypertext and the challenges of navigation in a non-linear environment. Hypertext is nonsequential, nonlinear, and nonhierarchical (Bur- bules & Callister, 1996; Nielsen, 1995; Slatin, 1991; Sutherland-Smith, 2002). Even an highly organized hypertext is seen as multilinear because it affords the reader many op- tions and many paths of traversal, as well as new ways of making connections among subtopics (Bolter, 1991). As discussed in the previous paragraphs, when students do not develop an awareness of the characteristics of hypertext structure and organizational cues, they easily miss or misunderstand important ideas and related details. In addition, many researchers believe that hypertext imposes a greater cognitive load on online readers than 112 print text imposes on print readers, so that novice online readers easily get disorientated within Web pages (Heller, 1990; Jonassen & Wang, 1990; Schroeder, 1994; Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Online readers need to remember where they are, where to go next, when to skim and when to slow down and explore, how to find information, and when to re- mind themselves to track and monitor their comprehension of online information. When they jump between multiple Web pages, especially unmarked and unflagged hypertexts, readers may experience discontinuity. As discussed in the earlier Results section, when students did not keep track of previous steps and organize the information they encoun- tered in less structured passages, their cognitive processing was interrupted or jumbled, resulting in a fragmented, incomplete representation and not an integrated representation of what they had read (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1995; Lee & Tedder, 2003). This suggests that text organization and structure are important textual cues to help online readers im- prove their reading comprehension (Rouet & Levonen, 1996), their reading performance (i.e., recall), and their navigation (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1992; Mohageg, 1992; Simpson & McKnight, 1990). Online search strategies. The data suggested that the students in this study had not developed a diverse repertoire of online search strategies, although they were often on the Internet to look for information for their school assignments and to pursue their own in- terests. All of the students (including all the GE and students with LD) heavily relied on search engines (especially Google or Yahoo, but not Yahoo! Kids or other educational search engines) when looking for answers, even if they were given choices of other search methods, such as browsing through topics in an index, entering a specific URL, or finding answers from an “answering board” (such as Yahoo! K ids’s “Ask Earl”). 113 In addition, both GE students and their peers with LD had limited skills and strate- gies for online searching. First, they experienced difficulties when selecting and narrow- ing down search terms (for example, they would type “Cheetah habitats” but not “Chee- tahs”), spelling keywords, and using different combinations of keywords. Most of them just typed the full-blown sentence in their chosen search engine, but not keywords. Sec- ond, they looked at some titles in the list of search results, but they did not read the de- scriptions or URLs showing in the search list. In fact, most of them read only the first 10 search results on the first page (if that many), and they did not click the “next” page to search for additional information. These findings confirm the findings of other research- ers (e.g., Lyons, Hoffman, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997). Third, when they made decisions to access particular Web pages, they often chose “Yahoo! Answers” or “Wiki Answers” to be their primary sources, only because the “answers” on these sites were used and voted on by other Web users. The data further showed that the students generally sought easy, quick answers, but lacked the ability to select and evaluate good, reliable sources. Moreover, the results suggested that the fifth- and sixth-grade students had not de- veloped the skills or abilities to use keywords to locate information within a Webpage. Both GE students and their grade-age peers with LD preferred to browse whole Web pages, rather than use keywords to locate specific information quickly. Once they opened a Web page, they often read the entire hypertext because they did not know what the keywords were, or how to distinguish the main ideas and the related details. The above findings suggested that fifth- and sixth-grade students also had not devel- oped sufficient, mature online search strategies. Students in this study exhibited weak abilities in selecting and narrowing down keywords in search engines; they preferred to 114 find answers on public bulletin boards or in user forums, rather than through reliable, authorized sources; they also had difficulties in evaluating online information, because of limited evaluation strategies regarding Internet information. The Internet is ill-structured compared with traditional print-text environments. Spiro (2004) claimed that learning strategies that are effective with print texts are much different in complex ill-structured environments (i.e. the Internet). Coiro and Dobler (2007) also argued that traditional reading comprehension and skills are necessary, but not adequate when reading and lo- cating information online. Therefore, students need to be taught more flexible reading strategies (Spiro & Jehng, 1990), and need to develop more abilities and skills to flexibly integrate prior knowledge with new knowledge to adapt to new and rapidly changing on- line reading contexts (Spiro, 2004). New approaches to instruction may include teaching students to think in more flexible ways (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991), as well as how to integrate and construct meaning from online features, so that they know how to synthesize multiple representations. These search strategies are also related to students’ online reading strategies, which are discussed in the next paragraph. One of the interesting findings in this study is that students may exhibit the charac- teristics of multiple online reader “types,” and students with LD were not always inactive and unstrategic learners. Researchers have proposed categorizing online readers into three types: (1) knowledge seekers, (2) feature explorers, and (3) apathetic readers (An- derson-Inman & Homey, 1994; Barab, Bowdish & Lawless, 1997; Lawless & Kulikowich, 1996, 1998; Niederhauser, Salmen, & Reynolds; 1998). However, past re- searchers has not explicitly defined how to distinguish online readers and sort them into the three sub-types. In this present study, the analysis that found students could be as- 115 signed to more than one type or profile. The analysis further showed that when students understood their purpose for reading, they demonstrated more advanced strategies in looking for information or seeking knowledge on the Websites they visited. In addition, students with LD were not all classified as “apathetic readers.” In fact, they were almost evenly categorized into each of the three sub-types. Some students with LD had better search and reading strategies, which helped them locate and access online information. However, most of the students with LD had not developed mature search strategies. This weakness may be related to their generally weaker online reading strategies, the area that is discussed in the next paragraphs. Online reading strategies. The analyses showed that the fifth- and sixth-grade stu- dents had limited online reading strategies. Both GE students and their grade-level peers with LD had weak before-reading strategies, and had difficulties in distinguishing be- tween before-reading and during-reading strategies. From the minute they first looked at the Web pages, they began reading every word from the passages, without previewing or scanning the contents of the pages for headings or other cues. Although the GE students indicated in their survey answers that they would first preview headings and think about their pupose for reading, they had a hard time applying these strategies to the online texts they read during the individual interviews. As they read, most of the students preferred to read everything in each passage, and they did not seem to employ appropriate during-reading strategies to efficiently locate information in the Web pages. Although some of the GE students apparently possessed some metacognitive knowledge regarding during-reading strategies, they did not readily transfer this knowledge from the print to the online environment. 116 However, in comparison with the before- and during-reading strategies, both GE students and their grade-level peers with LD performed better when applying after- reading strategies. They read some sections again, recalled the important ideas, memo- rized the details, and saved URLs for future reference. It seemed that they applied more and better strategies across the printed and online contexts, compared with their pre- and during-reading strategies. Duke et a1. (2006) claimed that online readers experience both similarities and dif- ferences in comprehension processes across electronic and print texts. Readers transfer some strategies acquired in traditional text formats to electronic text environments, while some strategies are specific to particular textual environments. This interpretation closely fits the findings in this study. The data showed that fifih- and sixth-grade students pre- ferred to read online passages several times to understand and remember the main ideas. This strategy may be shared by both of the contexts — online and print environments. Also, students expressed that they would save some Websites’ URLs (Web addresses) to their Internet “Bookmarks,” so that they could retrieve them easily and quickly when they needed them later. Implications Digital literacy is more and more necessary for success in K-12 education, and this study suggested implications for instruction and curriculum. Most content area teachers do not see themselves as reading teachers. Even when they teach subjects with high read- ing demands, they do not teach reading strategies to help students increase their reading comprehension and performance (Kamil, 2003). A similar discrepancy between the in- structional needs of students and the realities of teachers’ instructional practices was re- 117 vealed in this study. Although literacy strategies are paramount to successful performance in online reading contexts, this study uncovered deficiencies in students’ strategic and metacognitive performance. Students did not demonstrate the literacy strategies or execu- tive control needed to ensure independent learning. Also, students reported experiencing more difficulties in finding main ideas and related details when reading hypertexts with- out clear text structure and organization. These untabbed texts hindered their ability to read and understand online information. There are many underlying questions that must be considered to resolve this issue. One question is students’ access to technologies in school settings, and the teaching agents who will apprentice students in the literacy strategies that are necessary for skillfiil performance. First, many schools are not equipped with all computer resources they need so that students can access expository texts in online environments. Obviously, students will not acquire literacy strategies unless they have access to the technology at school and instructional mentors to ensure a complete apprenticeship. Moreover, it cannot be as- sumed that students will successfully transfer new literacy strategies used in the context of print-based media to the comprehension of digital media. A second concern is identifying the instructional agents who will teach online read- ing and search strategies, as well as knowledge of hypertext structures, to upper- elementary and middle school students. Is this instructional responsibility best assigned to Media specialists, Librarians, English language arts teachers, or tier-one reading special- ists? Also where in the school curriculum should the instructional content be taught? Should it go with the literacy curriculum or with particular subjects? In addition, what strategies do students most urgently need to learn, and in what order? Do students with 118 LD have to learn every online reading and search strategy? Or just the ones meeting their particular learning needs and background? These questions are imperative for K-12 edu- cators to think about and plan for. Third, as presented in the Results and Discussion sections, students had higher metacognitive knowledge, but often failed to act upon this knowledge, in authentic con- texts. The data showed that students often had some declarative knowledge, as evidenced by their ability to name some good online reading and search strategies. However, they did not perform and apply those strategies when they were given actual online tasks. This may indicate that the students had less procedural knowledge (knowing how to employ the strategies), and conditional knowledge (knowing when and why the strategies should be employed) (Anderson, 1993; Enns, 1993; Paris, Lipson and Wixson, 1983; Smith and Ragan, 1999). For example, students said they knew they should type keywords, but then they proceeded to type full-blown sentences in the search engine; they said they should preview titles and scan illustrations, but then they proceeded to read everything on the Webpage. One factor contributing to this discrepancy may be that, while students have some knowledge of reading strategies for print-texts, they do not know how to transfer those strategies into the online environment. They may have had more practice using these strategies with their paper-based homework, assignments, and tests, but not in on- line contexts. A fourth issue is interpreting the results from a traditional viewpoint of print-based learning. While many researchers have investigated typing keywords with different levels of complexity into a search engine, they have reported that more-skilled Internet users are flexible in generating keywords and constructing Boolean operators when searching for 119 answers on the Internet (Lyons, Hoffman, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997; Wallace et al., 2000). However, for some students, especially for students with special needs, maybe it is more efficient to retype or copy the entire original question. The reason is that selecting, summarizing, and narrowing down statement questions into a few words may consume large amounts of cognitive resources and search time. Likewise, there may be individual differences in the search behaviors of users that may not be explained by the methods employed in the current study. When Internet users browse unstructured information along author-created links (i.e., external or internal links), browsing does raise traditional problems of disorientation and cognitive overhead, but it may also bring out information serendipity. Users can also apply searching and structuring techniques, such as maps and paths, to make browsing more effective (Zellweger, 1989). These creative methods can be very effective for some Internet reading and searching purposes, and they are uniquely responsive to the hypertext environment and sensitive to the goals of the users. In turn educators may need to think about alternative, unique ways to teach students to search for information in online environments in an efficient and generative manner. After all, stu- dents need more flexible reading strategies to adapt to new and changing online reading circumstances and technologies (Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Another implication of the present study pertains to educational Website design and online program development. The data of this study suggested that, to fifth- and sixth- grade students, the Internet presents itself as an ill-structured, vague, and abstract envi- ronment. Students are not equipped with adequate online reading and search strategies to take full advantage of the Internet. Elementary and middle-schools students, including students with special needs and general education students, heavily rely on the structural 120 cues and overall organization of educational Websites and software programs to advance their learning. However, many of the Websites students visit—even those designed by national agencies and prestigious publishers—are often not well-suited to meet students’ diverse needs, comprehension skills, cognitive capabilities, and learning styles. These Websites may have abundant information for our students, but their sequencing of ele- ments and their visual flow may not fit students’ learning aptitudes and reading processes. In light of our emerging understanding of the difficulties our students’ experience, we can hope that national organizations and publishers, among others, will devote greater atten- tion to addressing students’ needs. In the end, software and Web interface designers can do as much as teachers can to help our students take full advantage of everything the In- ternet has to offer. Limitations Every study has its limitations and this one was not an exception. There were sev- eral limitations of this study. First, the fatigue effect might be considered. It is possible that students got tired during the interview questions, reading tasks, and online search activities. It is also conceivable that they wanted to finish earlier for other reasons. F ur- ther, the fact of being pulled out of their classroom to participate in this study may have affected the search behaviors and skills the subjects exhibited. Second, the small sample size of the interview participants limited the statistical power of the study and its findings. A related limitation involving the small number of interview participants in the present study is that the 25 students were not particularly diverse since they all came from subur- ban schools in two particular areas (a single Midwestern U.S. state and northern Taiwan); these students very likely do not represent all U.S. or Taiwanese upper-elementary and 121 middle school online readers. Third, this study’s results are not generalizable because the participants were not randomly selected from the whole population. Fourth, the partici- pants came from two different countries, so the limitations may involve the influence of cultural differences, such as learning styles, teaching philosophies, and educational out- comes. Also, the teaching materials, course objectives, and students’ textbooks may have played a role in influencing the students’ knowledge of particular topics (i.e., Cheetahs and Tasmanian Devils). Fifth, this study was intended to distinguish and classify the par- ticipating students into three subtypes of readers: (1) knowledge seekers, (2) feature ex- plorers, and (3) apathetic readers (Anderson-Inman & Homey, 1994; Barab, Bowdish & Lawless, 1997; Lawless & Kulikowich, 1996, 1998; Niederhauser, Salmen, & Reynolds; 1998). However, the students’ observed navigation and selection of information may have been influenced to a large extent by reading context, searching purpose, and leam- ing motivation. These factors may have significantly influenced the students’ actual search behaviors and strategy application, but an examination of these constraints was beyond the purpose of the current study. Finally, the results were not generalizable to other textual genres such as narrative texts, with which elementary students typically have much more experience (Duke, 1998; see Olinghouse, 2007; Stein & Trabasso 1982; Winograd & Bridge, 1986), about which they have better knowledge (De La Paz, 1997; see Olinghouse, 2007), and which they typically have less difficulty reading and writing (Hidi & Hildyard, 1983; see Olinghouse, 2007; Pelligrini, Galda, & Rubin, 1984; Wi- nograd & Bridge, 1986). 122 Future Research Directions As there is little research about how to teach readers to comprehend hypertexts (Duke et al., 2006), there is a substantial need for empirical research in this area. Do stu- dents benefit when they receive instruction in hypertext comprehension? What kinds of instruction do they need as they read on the Internet and use hypertext resources? As they receive such instruction, will they apply and transfer it to the print-text context? Specifi- cally, who should teach comprehension of text to students? Does the responsibility be- long to the classroom teacher, reading specialist, technology instructor, or all of them? Researchers have written about the urgent need to teach online reading compre- hension strategies and skills, as well as to evaluate and assess these skills (e.g., Coiro, 2003; RRSG, 2002). Exploring reading comprehension in the electronic environment may also shed light on and re-energize research of print texts. In addition, there is a clear need to compare the differences between students’ reading and search strategies in print and digital contexts. The differences of strategy application that emerge across the two different contexts may also reveal and explain how students bring to bear newer or more creative ways to adapt to online texts. Do students with special needs bring more differ- ent strategies and behaviors to the online environment than their GE peers? Do general education students consistently apply reading and search strategies across the two con- texts? Is there any advantage to promoting more consistency or more creativity, or can both be encourage? These questions may help researchers develop more appropriate and individual instruction to assist each student with his or her particular learning style. Since this research was targeted at students’ online reading comprehension strate- gies, future studies may implement effective online reading interventions to compare the 123 differences in outcomes across interventions, as well as the qualitative changes over time in students’ online reading processes and comprehension. 124 CONCLUSION Students come to school with a wide range of diverse learning needs and back- grounds. Helping them develop their knowledge, skills, and strategies is necessary and essential, so that they can more successfully engage in their schooling and learning. The foregoing quantitative and qualitative findings, discussion, and implications to- gether open new possibilities for theory, research and practice to support readers with in- dividual differences. Above all, this study revealed several underlying issues of instruc- tional needs and learning discrepancies that must be considered. First, instructional prac- tices in the area of Internet literacy strategies are insufficient to support the growing de- mands and opportunities of students’ online learning. Students in this study did not dem- onstrate the mature literacy strategies and executive control needed to ensure independent online learning. With the Internet becoming more and more pervasive in K-12 classrooms, it is essential for students at a young age to develop digital literacy skills and strategies to access the rich informational resources and experiences afforded by the Internet. Second, many schools are not equipped with adequate computer resources to fully support their students’ acquisition of expository information literacy in online environ- ments. The needed resources include technology hardware and software, as well as in- structional mentors to help students successfully transfer literacy strategies from print- based media to the digital media. Third, students bring new, flexible strategies into the online context. The stu- dents in this study relied on public bulletin boards or forums (such as Yahoo Answers or Wiki Answers) to retrieve information, rather than synthesizing multiple sources to create their own organized answers. The results also showed that the students wanted quick, 125 easy answers, and were not equipped with good evaluation abilities and skills. In addition, some of the students did develop strategies and could use search engine fimctions, such as “Related Searches” and “Suggested Search Results.” These functions can help online users locate specific information quickly and easily. As Spiro (2004) claimed in the con- text of his Cognitive Flexibility Theory, learning strategies developed with print texts look much different when used in complex ill-structured environments (i.e. on the Inter- net). Given that little yet is known about how students use comprehension strategies in online reading environments (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Kamil & Intrator, 1998; Leu, 2000, 2002; Reinking, 1998), the findings from this study may shed useful light on students’ online reading performance. Fourth, digital literacy is a new literacy for upper-elementary and middle school stu- dents. When students read hypertext, they need to understand its structure to help their reading comprehension. For example, they need to understand the affordances of naviga- tion tabs in organized texts and the usefulness of applying naming strategies (a strategy to recognize and identify main topic or sub-topic of Web pages) to less structured hyper- texts, so that they can easily locate information, keep track of previous steps, and remem- ber the content (Rouet & Levonen, 1996) to improve their reading performance (i.e., re- call) and navigation abilities (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1992; Mohageg, 1992; Simpson & McKnight, 1990). The relevance of this naming strategy is another difference between reading print texts and hypertexts. Finally, Internet text presents a new reading challenge (N ICHD, 2000). Hypertext is an ill-structured text and may appear vague or abstract, as compared with well-structured print texts. Therefore, school educators and instructional developers need to consider 126 providing appropriate structural cues and organizational schemes for the online resources they use, so that students can benefit from the ever-expanding virtual library that is the Internet to advance their learning. In sum, this research is a preliminary study aiming to understand how upper- elementary and middle school students applied online reading comprehension strategies when reading hypertexts with different hypertext structures in an online environment. It affirms the importance of curriculum and instruction for developing digital literacy, and aims to lay a foundation for improving curriculum and instruction in the future. The study’s overarching aim is, ultimately, to make a positive contribution to student literacy learning and societal wellbeing. 127 APPENDICES 128 APPENDICES Appendix A. Group questionnaire about online reading comprehension strategies & in- formation search These questions will be asked about your Internet use and reading strategies in the print and online environments. Please rate the degree to which the following statements reflect your current personal experience. 1. Which of the following is the most useful to you in helping with your schoolwork (choose one answer)? DIntemet ULibrary CJParents UFriends DOther (please specify) _ 2. When you read for fun, do you prefer to read print materials (books, newspa- pers) or read from a computer screen (choose one answer)? DPrint books (i.e., story books, newspapers, magazines) 0Computer screen DOther (please specify) DParent’s office Where do you usually read ONLINE (choose one answer)? DHome DFriend’s house rJSchool [Public library 4. How long would you say that you have been going ONLINE on the Internet (check one answer)? Within the 1 year ago last 6 months 2 years ago 3 years ago More than 3 years ago 5. How frequently do you use the INTERNET for the following activities (1 is never, 5 is the most frequency) (circle one answer in each row)? Never Once 2-3 days Once Several (1) per per per day times' week (2) week (3) (4) per day (5) Reading (e.g., news, blogs, Facebook, Websites, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) emails...) Usingemfl (1) (2) <3) (4) (5) 129 Using Instant Messenger, Downloading music or vid- eos text messages, chat rooms, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) or message boards Watching TV shows, vid- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) cos, or movies Writing blogs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Writing on Facebook or (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) MySpace Searching for information (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Playing Internet games (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 6. Rate your understanding or skills for using the following activities (1 is never or do not know how to do this, 5 is the best) (circle one answer in each row). Do not Not so Just OK Good (4) Very know (1) good (2) (3) good (5) You are able to read & un— >®< ® (9 © “©!” derstand PRINT materials (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (i.e., story books, textbooks, newspapers, magazines) You are able to read & un- >®< ® (9 © “©!” derstand on the INTERNET (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (i.e., news, blogs, Facebook, Websites, emails...) You are able to find the in- >®< ® 69 © “©!” formation that you want on (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) the Internet You are satisfied with >®< ® 69 © “©!” search results that you have (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) conducted on the Internet You are able to read & un- >®< ® ® © “©!” derstand one Website with (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) the navigation tab names You are able to read & un- >®< ® 69 © “©!” 130 derstand one Website with- (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) out any la- bels/categories/subheadings and navigation tab names Direction: from #7 to #18, please check the box(es) or fill in the blanks that best an- swer the question. < Online Information Search Tasks> 7. If you want to search for information about cheetahs’ habitats, what is a search term/keyword/phrase that you would use to find information? Please write a good search term in the blank. Your search term/keyword 8. If the search term/keyword is “Cheetah females are lonely”, what kind of infor- mation might you find (check one best answer)? UThe cheetah has a long body UMale cheetahs live with female and young cheetahs 13F emale cheetahs live alone DCheetahs’ history UFemale cheetahs teach their young to hunt 9. If you want to search for information about cheetahs, which of the following would be the best search term/keyword to find information about their appear- ance (check one best answer)? DLean body DA cheetah’s tail ends in 4-6 black rings UWhat does the cheetah eat? UWhat does the cheetah look like? uWeighs 68-140 pounds CIA cheetah’s face 10. When you search on the Internet, which of the following is helpful to you in find- ing useful Web pages (check all that apply)? . DTitle of the page DAuthor uContent [Layout and design of the page DLength of the page DReadability of the page UOverall feel of the page UOrganization affiliated with the page CiOther (please specify) 131 < Online Comprehension: Texts with/out Navigating Tab names > 11 12. 13. 14. . Here are some tab names. Which one would best answer to find information “cheetahs are endangered s . ecies? (check one answer)” If a Cheetah’s Website displays the following navigation tab names, what in- formation might you expect to find on each Web page? Please write the relevant information that is listed below next to the tab name where it is likely to be found. Tabs are [Food] [Habitad [Huntl Information is as follows: I Birds, rabbits I Spotted firrs I Small antelopes, pigs I Females raise the cubs I Large paws I Grass lands I Africa and Asia I Nocturnal predators I Stalk victims Please record information below. The first one has an example that has been done for ou. m Birds, rabbits; ......... Here is some information from a Website about Cheetahs (see below). What title of the navigation tab name(s) would you assign to this text? Please write the tab name(s) in the blank below. Text: Cheetahs like to live in open areas, such as grasslands, plains, savannahs, and areas with tall grass. The cheetah can also be found in the prairie nearby forests in all parts of Africa. It hunts mainly by the daytime. It follows its prey for a short distance before it attacks. What tab name(s) or title would you assign to it? Here is one paragraph about Cheetahs. Please read this paragraph several times and try your best to retell the passage on the back side of the paper. Please do not look back at this passage while you recall it. Paragraph: Male cheetahs will defend a home territory. Female cheetahs on the other hand usually live a solitary life and like the freedom of being on their own with their cubs. A cheetah has a small head with very high set eyes. The cheetah’s chest is deep and its waist is narrow with black tear marks going along the sides of the nose to its mouth to keep the sunlight away from its eyes. Juvenile cheetahs stay with the mother for about a year and following this period the litter members 132 live together for a time perfecting their hunting skills. At around 23 months of age, the female cheetahs leave siblings to be with older dominant males. Retell the paragraph in the bacl_< side of the paper. 15. Here is another paragraph about the Tasmanian Devil’s appearance. Please read this paragraph several times and try your best to retell the passage in the back side of the paper. Please do not look back at this passage while you recall it. Paragraph: The Tasmanian Devil has the appearance of a medium sized dog, but more stocky and muscular. Unusual for a marsupial, the Devil’s forelegs are slightly longer than its hind legs. The Devil has long whiskers on the face and on the top of the head. It also has a thick-set, squat build, with a relatively large broad head, as well as a short, thick tail. The devil stores body fat in its tail, so unhealthy devils often have thin tails. The fur is mostly or wholly black, but white markings often occur on the chest, rump and shoulders. Adult males are usually larger than adult females. Large males weigh up to 12kg (26 pounds), and stand about 30cm (12 inches) at the shoulder. Retell the pamh in the back side of the paper. < Online Reading Strategies > 16 17. . Let’s say you are reading a Website to find and learn information for a class re- port or project, what strategies will you use before you start reading (check all that apply)? DRead every word from the Website DRandomly select some paragraphs to read URead first sentence of each paragraph DThink about why & what I should read DScan illustrations, graphs, charts, tables UUse keywords to locate information DPreview the Website’s title, headings, & subheadings EJGlance over the Website’s tabs UPreview the Website’s author, organization affiliation, & references/sources DPreview the Website’s Web addresses (URL: Uniform Resource Locator) Continuing #14. What strategies will you use Milk you read the Website to un- derstand and remember the information (check all that apply)? DRead every word from the Website DRandomly select some paragraphs to read URead first sentence of each paragraph DNotice text structure DTake notes DLocate main ideas DClick every link & multimedia (e.g., audio, pictures, movies) 133 18. [Copy & paste information from the Website to a Word document DASk a fi'iend to test me on the information [Play the games on the Website Continuing #15. What strategies will you use a ter you finish reading the Website (check all that apply)? DDrink water and take a break DMemorize everything from the Website DSearch for related Websites for further research URemember main ideas DRecall details :1le others about this Website UWrite down the gist or a draft [Print out for future reference USave Websites on the Internet bookmark DASk questions myself to see if I understand the content from the Website 134 _ Appendix B. Individual online reading comprehension Statement: In this reading activity, I’ll have you read two Websites. First, you will have 3 minutes to explore one “Tasmanian Devils” Website. You may click the left or right ar- row to move and read the text. You may also click the tabs above the title of “Tasmanian Devils” to explore this Website if you’d like; then, you will have 3 minutes to read the second Website. This Website is about “Cheetahs” and has six Web pages. You may click the top or left tables to explore this Website. You may also click any of the links in this Website if you’d like. After reading each Website, you will be asked several ques- tions to examine if you comprehend the texts fiom the two Websites. You may look back at the Websites to look for answers if you’d like. Comprehension Questions: 1. What do Tasmanian Devils/Cheetahs eat? 2. Where we can find Tasmanian Devils/Cheetahs? 3. How can we recognize Tasmanian Devils/Cheetahs? 4. What causes Tasmanian Devils/Cheetahs to be endangered? 5. What’s the relationship of the young Tasmanian Devils/Cheetahs to their mothers? Interview Questions: 1. Please read this Web page'0 (Tasmanian Devils) for 1 minute and retell the passage in your own words. What appropriate title(s) would you assign to this Web page? Why would you give this title? 2. Please tell me on what Web page you can find the fact about how “Tasmanian Devils are active at night and rest in the day”. 3. Please read this Web pagell (Cheetahs) for 1 minute and retell the passage in your own words. What appropriate title(s) would you assign to this Web page? Why would you give this title? 4. Please tell me on what Web page you can find the fact about how “Cheetahs only eat freshly killed prey”. Opinion Questions 10 http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/Animals/CreatureFeature/Tasmanian-devil Page 4 of 12 l l h_ttps://www.msu.edu/~chenhsl l/Cheetah/Appearance.html 135 . Which Website do you like best? Why? . Which Website does give you more information to learn from these animals? . What are the differences of these two Websites? What are their similarities? . Which Website makes it hard to read or comprehend for you? Why? Which one is easier? 136 Appendix C. Individual online search-engine task Statement: You will be given two searching topics. Please go to one of the children’s search engine Websites (i.e., http://kids.yahoo.com/. http://kidsyamcoml. http://tw.y2_rhoo.com/) to look for answers. When you use different search terms to search the open-ended questions. please explafir aloud wh_at you are doingpnd the steps you are taking. Topics: 1. Why do you turn blue when you are cold? 2. What is the difference between genotype and phenotype? Ways of finding information within the Website: search engine categories subject hierarchies answering board :“P’Pt‘ 137 Appendix D. Individual metacognitive interview about online reading strategies Statement: Let’s say the information you just searched for (the previous activity) was for your Science homework assignment. What strategies did you use to help you comprehend and learn the online materials? What did you do to find the answers? Prompt 1-1: When you used search engines, how did you decide the search terms or keywords? Prompt 1-2: Here is your list of search results for “Why do you turn blue when you are cold?” that you just found, how did you decide which Website you wanted to explore further? How did you know if you wouldn’t find the answer on a site? Prompt 1-3: As you are entering this Website (point to site from the students ’ search list), how did you find your answers quickly? Prompt 1-4: What strategies did you use betore you started reading for information on this Website? Prompt 2-1: Here are three Websites (choose three sites from the students ’ searching list) you were reading about “Why do you turn blue when you are cold?”. Please rank these Websites from #1 to #3. #1 means this Website has the best, most appropriate information, and #3 means this Website has the least, most inap- propriate information. Which one is the best Website? Second? Last? Why? Prompt 2-2: What strategies did you use while you were reading the three Websites to understand and remember the information? Prompt 3-1: What strategies did you use after you finished reading the three Websites? Prompt 3-2: Let’s say we won’t have enough time to read over this Website, how do you figure out what to read next? Can you predict what information the Website will mention or discuss? 138 Appendix E. Think-aloud practice (cited with permission from Dr. Laurie Henry (2003): Initiation — Present the term “think-aloud” to your students. Have them brainstorm what they think it might mean. Ask students to report how it might be applied to reading. Modeling — Model a think-aloud by presenting a poem on the overhead. As you read each line out loud to the students, stop and vocalize “thinking aloud” about the poem. Example — This is a think-aloud for the poem “Dream Variation” by Langston Hughes. To fling my arms wide In some place of the sun, To whirl and to dance Till the white day is done. [I ’m picturing a young girl with bare feet and a summer dress twirling in her front yard with her arms outstretched] Then rest at cool evening Beneath a tall tree [I’m picturing a large willow tree and sitting underneath it. Fireflies are blinking among the branches.] While night comes on gently, Dark like me— - [I'm now going back to my original picture of the young girl and can add more detail to the image in my mind. I 'm also thinking about the words "white day " and how they con- trast with the words "night" and "dark. "] That is my dream! [I think about how children's lives are so filled with dreams. This young girl seems to be free spirited and probably has many dreams} To fling my arms wide In the face of the sun, Dance! Whirl! Whirl! [I once again see the image of the young girl twirling in her yard and how free she is...like she is flying] Till the quick day is done. Rest at pale evening... [Hmmm... This poem includes several words that relate to color--white, dark, and pale. I wonder if the poet is trying to make a point about color.] 139 A tall, slim tree... Night coming tenderly Black like me. [There is another color word--black. I think the poet has some kind of hidden meaning here but I 'm not sure what it is. The poem seems to portray fi'eedom. Maybe the title "Dream Variation " helps make this point. Is this poem about slavery and the only way to be fiee is in a dream? I think that I might want to look up some information about the author and the date that this poem was published. That might help me to understand it better.] ' 140 Appendix F. Independent Samples T-tests from American and Taiwanese F ifth- and Sixth-Grade Students’ Survey Data Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means Variances Sig. F Sig. t df (2- US Taiwan tailed) Std. Std. Devia Devia- tion Mean tion Mean v1 v2 v3 v4 V501 v502 v503 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed 3.647 .059 -.159 118 .874 2.50 1.013 2.47 1.197 -.160 116.854 .873 45.015 .000 -6.914 118 .000* 1.88 .329 1.35 .482 -6.999 108.072 .000* 7.106 .009 -1.417 118 .159 1.76 1.393 1.44 1.096 -l.406 108.204 .163 .929 .337 1.103 118 .272 3.53 1.635 3.85 1.545 1.101 116.225 .273 .043 .835 .572 1 18 .568 2.59 1.312 2.73 1.357 .573 117.870 .568 .137 .712 .248 118 .804 2.07 1.362 2.13 1.287 .248 116.213 .805 2.841 .095 2.119 118 .036 1.76 1.174 2.26 1.390 12 All items corresponded to Questionnaires in Appendix A. 141 v504 v505 v506 v50? v508 v509 V601 V602 V603 Equal variances not as- mnned Equal vafiances aSMhned Equal vafiances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- muned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- mnned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances asmnned Equal variances not as- mnned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal vafiances asmuned Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances asmuned .031 3.793 4.247 .261 2.466 .773 4.166 3.116 2.313 .860 .054 .042 .611 .119 .381 .043 .080 .131 2.131 -3.595 -3.590 1.761 1.769 1.793 1.802 2.159 2.170 -2.335 -2.330 1.720 1.725 -4.126 -4.l43 -1.336 -l.339 .058 116.819 118 1 16.606 118 1 17.426 117 116.864 118 117.259 118 115.807 118 117.897 118 117.624 118 1 18.000 118 142 .035 .000 .000 .081 .079 .076 .074 .033 .032 .021 .022 .088 .087 .000 .000 .184 .183 .954 2.93 1.38 1.46 2.53 3.47 1.93 4.53 4.03 4.10 1.197 .952 1.135 1.012 1.287 1.183 .903 1 .092 .831 2.16 1.71 1.85 2.97 2.94 2.32 3.81 3.76 4.11 1.148 1.092 1.278 1.173 1.199 1.303 1.022 1.169 .960 V604 V605 V606 V8 V9 V1001 V1002 v1003 V1004 Equal variances notas- sumed Equal vafiances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal vafiances asmuned Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal vafiances notas- finned Equal vafiances assumed Equal variances notas- sumed Equal vafiances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal vafiances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances asmnned Equal variances notas- sumed Equal vmfiances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal vafiances assumed .418 .005 .887 .992 1.139 .851 .272 ‘ 373.10 2.512 .519 .944 .348 .321 .288 .358 .603 .000 .116 .058 -.702 -.700 -.621 -.619 -1.595 -1.591 .190 .191 -.112 -.113 -.460 -.461 .261 .261 7.314 7.172 -.792 117.316 117 114.453 117 114.335 117 113.701 117 116.511 116 114.349 117 116.997 117 116.934 117 70.655 117 143 .954 .484 .485 .536 .537 .113 .114 .850 .849 .911 .911 .646 .646 .795 .795 .000* .000“ .430 3.79 3.88 3.67 3.07 3.72 .76 .24 .47 .28 1.120 1.156 1.248 .792 1.073 .432 .432 .503 .451 3.66 3.75 3.33 3.10 3.70 .72 .26 .97 .21 1.015 1 .043 1.106 .889 1.253 .452 .444 .180 .413 I} V1005 V1006 V1007 V1008 V1100 V1401 V1402 V1501 V1502 Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal vafiances not as- muned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed .040 8.786 30.568 12.308 4.091 1.817 2.144 7.911 5.001 .842 .004 .000 .001 .045 .180 .146 .006 .027 -.791 -.100 -.100 1.540 1.543 4.641 4.668 1.724 1.732 -l.071 -1.075 -1 .256 -1.262 -.683 -.687 .709 .715 1.941 114.803 117 116.378 117 116.771 117 113.401 117 115.122 116 112.070 117 115.036 117 114.004 117 105.106 117 144 .431 .921 .921 .126 .125 .000” .000* .087 .086 .286 .285 .211 .209 .496 .493 .480 .476 .055 .12 .28 .19 .19 3.76 30.83 3.55 33.24 2.84 .329 .451 .395 .395 .709 16.991 2.045 18.359 2.323 .11 .41 .57 .33 3.60 26.49 3.26 36.30 3.87 .321 .496 .499 .473 .887 20.39 2.536 27.50 3.319 V1503 V1601 V1602 V1603 V1604 V1605 V1606 V1607 V1608 Equal variances not as- muned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal vafiances assumed 2.146 3.499 11.730 43.748 2.154 5.699 23.594 2.828 .579 .146 .064 .001 .000 .145 .019 .000 .095 .448 1.958 -1.067 -1.063 3.316 3.312 -l.688 -1.679 -2.954 -2.915 3.147 3.150 1.199 1.202 -3.173 -3.159 2.160 2.162 .810 107.669 117 112.921 117 115.701 117 109.914 117 89.065 117 116.985 117 116.805 117 111.509 117 116.961 117 145 .053 .288 .290 .001 .001 .094 .096 .004* .004* .002 .002 .233 .232 .002“ .002* .033 .033 .420 l .60 .40 .29 .26 .33 .26 .50 .36 .48 1.059 .493 .459 .442 .473 .442 .504 .485 .504 1.41 .69 .16 .07 .61 .36 .23 .56 .56 .920 .467 .373 .250 .493 .484 .424 .501 .501 f vl609 V1610 V1701 V1702 V1703 V1704 V1705 V1706 V1707 Equal vafiances notas- waned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal vafiances assumed Equal variances not as- muned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances asmuned Equal vafiances not as- sumed Equal vafiances asmuned Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances asmuned Equal variances notas- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- mnned Equal variances assumed 27.497 123.47 8.515 .553 70.402 17.658 33.946 1.034 93.821 .000 .000 .004 .459 .000 .000 .000 .311 .000 .810 2.484 2.503 4.476 4.542 2.508 2.503 -.371 -.371 -3.472 -3.410 6.916 6.959 -5.134 -5.l68 -.518 -.518 4.143 116.617 117 110.119 117 91.106 117 115.192 117 115.308 117 75.360 117 112.866 117 112.137 117 116.878 117 146 .420 .014 .014 .000“ .000“ .014 .014 .711 .712 .001“ .001“ .000* .000* .000“ .000“ .606 .605 .000" .14 .07 .47 .16 .24 .16 .83 .62 .09 .348 .256 .503 .365 .432 .365 .381 .489 .283 .33 .39 .69 .13 .03 .69 .41 .57 .39 .473 .493 .467 .340 .180 .467 .496 .499 .493 V1708 V1709 V1710 V1801 V1802 V1803 V1804 V1805 V1806 Equal variances not as- finned Equal vafiances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal vafiances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- finned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances asmuned Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed .000 1.614 30.229 37.809 .092 10.858 11.258 .314 15.588 .995 .206 .000 .000 .763 .001 .001 .577 .000 4.197 .003 .003 .634 .635 2.566 2.588 -3 .474 -3 .451 -.151 -.151 3.756 3.745 2.514 2.508 .294 .294 1.897 96.656 117 1 16.696 117 1 16.997 117 107.954 117 107.089 117 116.450 117 113.955 117 1 14.683 117 116.741 117 147 .000"I .997 .997 .528 .527 .012 .011 .001* .001“ .880 .880 .000* .000* .013 .014 .769 .769 .060 .33 .26 .12 .47 .24 .41 .48 .45 .14 .473 .442 .329 .503 .432 .497 .504 .502 .348 .33 .31 .31 .18 .23 .74 .70 .48 .28 .473 .467 .467 .388 .424 .444 .460 .504 .452 V1807 V1808 V1809 V1810 Equal vafiances not as- muned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- mnned Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not as- sumed 14.493 4.826 .003 4.117 .000 .030 .960 .045 1.909 2.273 2.280 -1.158 -1.156 2.716 2.716 1.087 1 .088 112.193 117 116.588 117 115.533 117 1 16.679 117 1 16.994 .059 .025 .024 .249 .250 .008 .008 .279 .279 .28 .41 .38 .34 .451 .497 .489 .479 .48 .31 .62 .44 .504 .467 .489 .501 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY 149 t) BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and de- velopmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 313-337. Allen, G., & Thompson, A. (1995) Analysis of the effect of networking on computer- assisted collaborative writing in a fifth grade classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 65-75. Alley, G., & Deshler, D. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love. Altun, A. (2000). Patterns in cognitive processes and strategies in hypertext reading: A case study of two experienced computer users. Journal of Educational Hypermedia and Multimedia, 9, 32-48. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Anderson, R. C. (1994). Role of readers’ schema in comprehension, learning, and mem- ory. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 448-468). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic View of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291), New York, NY: Longman. Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Content Area Textbooks. In R. C. Ander- son, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds). Learning to read in American schools: Ba- sal readers and content texts (pp. 193 -226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 150 Anderson, V. & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy in- struction for delayed readers in grades 6-10. Elementary School Journal. 94, 121- 137. Anderson-Inman, L., & Homey, M. A. (1994). The electrotext project: Hypertext reading patterns of middle school students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hyper- media, 3, 71-91. Applebee, A. N. (2000). Alternative models of writing development. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.). Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Armbruster, B. B. (1984). The problem of “inconsiderate texts.” In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and sugges- tions (pp. 202-217). New York, NY: Longman. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure! summari- zation instruction facilitate learning from expository test? Reading Research Quar- terly, 22, 331-346. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press. Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Practices (pp 77-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language, and the structure of prose (pp. 21-44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 353-394). New York, NY: Longman. Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452-477. 151 Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300-324. Balcytiene, A. (1999). Exploring individual processes of knowledge construction with hypertext. Instructional Science, 27, 303-328. Barab, S. A., Bowdish, B. E., & Lawless, K A. (1997). Hypermedia navigation: Profiles of hypermedia users. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 23-42. Barnes, M. A., Faulkner, H. J., & Dennis, M. (2001). Poor reading comprehension de- spite fast word decoding in children with hydrocephalus. Brain and Language, 76, 35-44. Bartlett, F. C. (1995). Remembering-A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R.Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press. Baumann, J. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 93-115. Beck, 1. L. (1989). Reading and reasoning. The Reading Teacher, 42, 676-682. Bereiter & Bird (1985). Use of drinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading. comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-56. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next-A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNextpdf. Blohm, P (1982). Computer-aided glossing and facilitated learning in prose recall. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction. T hirty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 24-28). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. 152 Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bolter, J. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of Visual literacy. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technol- ogy: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 2-14). Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates. Borkowski, J. G., & Burke, J. E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of execu- tive functioning: An information processing perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 255-261). Balti- more, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Bos, C. S., & Filip, D. (1984). Comprehension monitoring in learning disabled and aver- age students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1 7, 229-233. Boume, D. E. (1990). Computer-assisted instruction, learning theory, and hypermedia: an associative linkage. Research Strategies, 8, 160-171. Boyle, T. (1997). Design for multimedia learning. London, England: Prentice Hall. Brandt, D. S. (2000). Do the means justify the end-user searching? Computers in Librar- ies 20(3), 54-57. Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., & Vye, N. J. (1982). Helping students learn how to learn from written texts. In M. Singer (Ed), Competent reader disabled reader: Research and application (pp. 141-150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brown, J. 8., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-41. Brown, A., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37. Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1-8. 153 Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., & Lawton, S. C. (1978). The effects of experience on the selection of suitable retrieval cues for studying from texts. Child Development, 49, 829-835. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 219-239. Burbules, N. C., & Callister, T. A. (2000). Watch it: The risks and promises of informa- tion technologies for education. Boulder, CO: Westview. Burbules, N. C., & Callister, T. A. (1996). Knowledge at the crossroads: Some alternative futures of hypertext learning environments. Educational Theory, 46(1), 23-50. Carlisle, J. F., & Rice, M. S. (2004). Assessment of reading comprehension. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds), Handbook of language and lit- eracy: Development and disorders (pp. 521-540). New York, NY: Guilford. Castellani, J. D., & Jeffs, T. (2001). Reading and writing: Teaching strategies, technology tools, and the Internet. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 60-67. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (1996). The role of online communica- tion in schools: A national study. Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://www.cast.org. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The Reading Crisis: Why Poor Chil- dren Fall Behind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2003). “Techsavviness” meets multiliteracies: Explor- ing adolescent girls’ technologymediated literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 356-385. Chang, K.-E., Su, Y.-F., & Sung, Y.-T. (2001). The eflects of a computer system in online reading comprehension: a preliminary study of learning disabled students (Report no. NSC89-2614-S003-003). Taipei, Taiwan: National Science Council. 154 11 . Chang, K. -E., Su, Y. -F., & Sung,Y .-.T (2001). Assistive reading system in special educa- tion online learning (Report no. NSC90—2614-H003- -0.02-F20) Taipei, Taiwan: Na- tional Science Council. Chamey, D. (1994). The Impact of Hypertext on Processes of Reading and Writing. In S. Hillgoss & C. Selfe (Eds). Literacy and Computers (pp. 238-263). New York, NY: Modern Language Association. Chen, H.-Y. & Englert, C. S. (submitted). Exploring the reading and writing comprehen- sion strategies used by Taiwanese elementary graders with learning disabilities. In- ternational Journal of Special Education. Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, England: Routledge. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464. Coiro, J. & Dobler, E. (2003, November). Exploring how skilled readers use reading strategies while locating information on the Internet. Paper presented at the 52nd annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. 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 In- ternet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214-257. Coiro, J., Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Labbo, L., Teale., W., Bergman, L., Sulzen, J., & Sheng, D. (2003, December). A review of research on literacy and technology: Replicating and extending the NRP subcommittee report on computer technology and reading instruction. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Csikszenthmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. 155 Daneman, M. (1987). Reading and working memory. In J. R. Beech & A. M. Colley (Eds), Cognitive approaches to reading (pp. 57-86). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Danner, F. W. (1976). Children’s understanding of intersentence organization in the re- call of short descriptive passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 183. Davidson, J., Elcock, J ., & Noyes, P. (1996). A preliminary study of the effect of com- puter-assisted practice on reading attainment. Journal of Research in Reading, 19, 102-110. ' Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J. H. (1992). Text representation with traditional text and hy- pertext (Tech. Rep. HP. #21). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, De- partment of Psychology. Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J. H. (1995). Learning from electronic texts: effects of interac- tive overviews for information access. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 431-468. De Jong, P. (1998). Working memory deficits of reading disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 75—95. De La Paz, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Teaching students with learning and writing disabilities to compose persuasive and expository essays. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 227-248. Dempster, F. N. (1985). Short-term memory development in childhood and adolescence. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds), Basic processes in memory (pp. 209-248). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz , B. K S1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2“ ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Com- pany. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. E, Knight, J ., & Ehren, B. J. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16, 96-108. 156 Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society: The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Dewitz, P., & Dewitz, P. K. (2003). They can read the words, but they can’t understand: Refining comprehension assessment: Comprehension problems can be difficult to detect and treat. Here are some suggestions for catching these problems and ad- dressing students’ shortcomings. The Reading Teacher, 5 6, 422-435. Dickson, S. V., Collins, V. L., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1998). Metacogni- tive strategies: Instructional and curricular basics and implications. In D. C. Sim- mons & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs (pp. 361-380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1990). Navigation in hypertext: A critical review of the concept. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT ‘90: Human-computer interaction (pp. 587-592). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier. Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I care about who they are: A microethnography of the social organization of a secondary low-track English classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 227-259. DiVesta, F. J ., Hayward, K. G., & Orlando, V. P. (1979). Developmental trends in moni- toring texts for comprehension. Child Development, 50, 97-105 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. 289-304). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Duke, N. K. (1998, March). Empirical confirmation of the scarcity of informational text in the early grades. Paper presented at the Harvard Graduate School of Education Student Research Conference, Cambridge, MA. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224. Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Reading comprehension difficulties. 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, NY: Guilford Press. 157 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: Volume II (pp. 317-326). Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates. Educational Testing Service (2003). Digital transformation: A fiamework for [C T liter- acy. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.ets.org/research/ictliteracy/ictreport.pdf. Edward, D., & Hardman, L. (1989) Lost in hyperspace: A faceted approach to hypertext. In R. McAleese (Ed), Hypertext: Theory into Practice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structure in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65-74. Englert, C.S., & Mariage, T.V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE.” Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123- 138. Englert, C.S., Mariage, T.V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 208-221). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., Okolo, C. M., Courtad, C. A., Shankland, R. K., Moxley, K. D., Jones, N., & Billman, A. (2007). Accelerating expository literacy in the middle grades: The ACCEL project. In B. Taylor & J. Ysseldyke (Eds.), Educa- tional interventions for struggling readers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., Okolo, C. M., Shankland, R., Moxley, K., Courtad, C., Jocks-Meier, B., O'Brien, J. C., Martin, N., & Chen, H.-Y. (2009). The Leaming- to-Leam Strategies of Adolescent Students with Disabilities: Highlighting, Notetaking, Flaming, and Writing Expository Texts. Assessment for Effective In- tervention: Written Language Special Issue. Englert, C. S., Okolo, C. M., & Mariage, T. V. (in press). Expository reading and writing across the curriculum. In G. Troia (Ed.), Writing Instruction and Assessment for Struggling Writers: From Theory to Evidence-Based Practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 158 Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T., E. (1989). Developing successful writers through cognitive strategy instruction. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 105-151). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Anderson, L. M. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk Visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337-372. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. B, Anderson, L. M., Gregg, S. L., & Anthony, H. M. (1989). Exposition: Reading, writing, and the metacognitive knowledge of learning disabled stu- dents. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 5(1), 5-24. Englert, C. S., Stewart, S. R., & Hiebert, E. H. (1988). Young writers’ use of text struc- ture in expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 143-151. Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writ- ing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, I 0, 93-105. Enns, C. Z. (February 1993). Integrating Separate and Connected Knowing: The Experi- ential Learning Model. Teaching of Psychology 20(1), 7-13. Fidel, R., Davies, R. K., Douglass, M. H., Holder, J. K., Hopkins, C. J., Kushner, E. J., et a1. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 24-37. Fitzgerald, J. (1984). The relationship between reading ability and expectations for story structure. Discourse Processes, 7, 21—42. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving, In L. B. Resnick (Ed), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocr- ates. F lavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral com- munication skills (pp. 35-60). New York, NY: Academic Press. 159 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 Associates. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Garner, R. (1992). Metacognition and self-monitoring strategies. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 236-252), Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Garner, R., & Reis, R. ( 1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: An investigation of spontaneous text look backs among upper grade good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569-5 82. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehen- sion strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320. Gildroy, P., & Deshler, D. D. (2006). Reading development and suggestions for teaching reading to students with learning disabilities. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 3(1), 1-14. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 125-135. Gordon, S., Gustave], J., Moore, J., & Hankey, J. (1988) The effects of hypertext on reader knowledge representation. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 32, 296-300. 160 Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, C. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple View of reading. In C. Comoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension diffi- culties: Process and intervention (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Reme- dial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102-114. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16, 74-84. Graham, 8., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. S. (1995). The effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230- 240. Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Eflective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools - A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Graves, M. F., Prenn, M. C., & Cooke, C. L. (1985). The coming attraction: Previewing short stories to increase comprehension. Journal of Reading, 28, 594-598. Graves, M. F ., Juel, C., & Graves, B. (2001). Teaching reading in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gray, S. H. (1990). Using protocol analysis and drawing to study mental model construc- tion during hypertext navigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Inter- action, 2(4), 359-377. Gregg, N., & Mather, N. (2002). School is fun at recess: Informal assessment of written language. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 35(1 1), 23-38. Guthrie, J. T., & Alvermann, D. E. (Eds.). (1999). Engaged reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 161 Guthrie, J. T., & Knowles, K. T. (2001). Promoting reading motivation. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 159-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Guzzetti, B. J., & Gamboa, M. (2004). Zines for social justice: Adolescent girls writing on their own. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 408-436. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 520-561. Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hansen, C. L. (1978). Story retelling used with average and learning disabled readers as a measure of reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 62-69. Heimann, M., Nelson, K. E., Tjus, T., & Gillberg, C. (1995). Increasing reading and communication skills in children with autism through an interactive multimedia computer program. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 25, 459-481. Heller, R. S. (1990). The role of hypermedia in education: a look at the research issues. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 421-441. Henry, L. A. (2003). Building reading comprehension through think-alouds. Read- WriteThink, Newark, DA. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from http://www.readwritethink.org/1essons/lesson_view.asp?id=l39. Hidi, S. E., & Hildyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions in two discourse types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91-105. 162 Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2000). Speaking to read: The effects of continuous vs. discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 19-30. Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1997). T echnologr for students with learning disabilities: Edu- cational applications. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Hill, J. R., Reeves, T. C., Grant, M. M., & Wang, S. K. (2000). Year one report: Athens Academy laptop evaluation. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Hillinger, M., & Leu, DJ. (1994), Guiding instruction in hypermedia, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, 266-270. Hirsh, S. G. (1999). Children’s relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 1265-1283. Holmes, B. C. (1985). The effects of a strategy and sequenced materials on the inferential comprehension of disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 542-546. Homer, S. L., & Shewry, C. S. (2002). Becoming an engaged, self-regulated reader. T he- ory Into Practice, 41, 102-109. Howell, R.D., Erickson, K., Stanger, C., & Wheaton, J.E. (2000). Evaluation of a com- puter-based program on the reading performance of first grade students with poten- tial for reading failure. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 5-14. Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 575-611. 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 in- formation, (pp. 148-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Johnson, L., Graham, 8., & Harris, K. R. (1997). The effects of goal setting and self- instructions on learning a reading comprehension strategy: A study with students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 80-91. 163 J onassen, D. H. (1986). Hypertext principles for text and courseware design. Educational Psychologist, 21, 269-292. Jonassen, D. H., & Wang, S. (1990, October). Acquiring structural knowledge from se- mantically structured hypertext. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for the Development of Computer-based Instructional Systems, San Di- ego, CA. Kafai, Y., & Bates, M. J. (1997). Internet web-searching instruction in the elementary classroom: Building a foundation for information literacy. School Library Media Quarterly (Winter), 103-111. Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st Century. Wasington, DC. Kamil, M. L., & Intrator, S. (1998). Quantitative trends in publication of research on technology and reading, writing, and literacy. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez- Brown (Eds.), 47th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 385-396). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. R. Reinking, L. D. Labbo, M. C. McKenna, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Literacy for the 21‘" century: Technological trans- formations in a post-typoraphic world (pp. 323-342). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kim, H., & Kamil, M. L. (1999, December). Exploring hypertext reading and strategy use for structured vs. unstructured texts. Presented to the National Reading Confer- ence, Orlando, FL. Kincaid, J. P., F ishbume, R. P., Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and F lesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel, Research Branch Report 8- 75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training. Kintsch, W., & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educa- tional practice and psychological theory. In L-G. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives on memory research (pp. 329-365). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 164 Kranzler, J. H., Miller, M. D., & Jordan, L. (1999). An examination of racial/ethnic and gender bias on curriculum-based measurement of reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 327-342. Kress, G. (2004). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge. Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue, and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 35—61). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Kucan, L., & Beck, 1. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-299. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1997). Learning in digital libraries: An information process approach. Library Trends, 45, 708-724. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in K- 12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing infor- mation. Review of Educational Research, 75, 285-328. Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension using think-alouds. Journal of Ado- lescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 492-500. Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary theory and technol- ogy. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and class- room learning. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information process- ing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323. Lapp, D., Flood, J., & Ranck-Buhr, W. (1995). Using multiple text formats to explore scientific phenomena middle school classrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difliculties, I I , 173-186. Large, A., & Beheshti, J. (2000). The Web as a classroom resource: Reactions form the users. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 , 1069-1080. 165 1“?- Large, A., Beheshti, J ., & Rahman, T. (2002). Design criteria for children's Web portals: The users speak out. Journal of he American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 79-94. Lave, J ., & Wenger, E. (2003). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1993, October). Assessment of students ’ navigation and comprehension of a hypertext document. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1994, October). Reading comprehension, naviga- tion and. hypertext. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1996). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 385-399. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1998). Domain knowledge, interest, and hypertext navigation: A study of individual differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(1), 51-70. Lawless, K. A., Mills, R. & Brown, S. W. (2003). Children’s hypertext navigation strate- gies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 274-284. Lebo, H. (2003). The UCLA Internet report: Surveying the digital firture, year three. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Communication Policy. Lee, M. J ., & Tedder, MC. (2003). The effects of three different computer texts on read- ers' recall: based on working memory capacity. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 767-783. Lenhart, A., Simon, M., & Graziano, M. (2001). The Internet and education: Findings of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://www.pewlntemet.org/report_display.asp?r=39. 166 Lemke, J. L. (1989). Social semiotics: A new model for literacy education. In D. Bloome (Ed), Classrooms and literacy (pp. 289-309). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Leu, D. J., JR. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy educa- tion in an information age. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates. Leu, D. J ., JR. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the Inter- net. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about read- ing instruction (3rd ed., pp. 310-336). Newark, DE: International Reading Associa- tion. Leu, D. J., JR., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communica- tion technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (fifth ed, pp.1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/leu. Levin, D., Arafeh, S., Lenhart, A. & Rainie, L. (2002). The digital disconnect: T'he wid- ening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://www.pewInternet.org/report_display.asp?r=67. Lin, S.-H. (2006). The stuay of the reading comprehension, behavior, interface and pref- erences of reading comprehension strategies in Web-reading and paper reading for students with learning disabilities at elementary level. Master dissertation, Na- tional Hsinchu University of Education, 2006). Lindsey, J. D., & Kerlin, M. A. (1979). Learning disabilities and reading disorders: A brief review of the secondary level literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(6), 55-62. Loomis, S. C., & Bourque, M. L. (Eds.). (2001). National assessment of educational pro- gress achievement levels [992-1998 for reading. Washington, DC: National As- sessment Governing Board. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/readingbook.pdf. Lyons, D., Hoffman, J ., Krajcik, J ., & Soloway, E. (1997, March). An investigation of the use of the World Wide Web for online inquiry in a science classroom. Paper pre- 167 sented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL. Lytle, S. L. (1982). Exploring comprehension style: A study of twelfth-grade readers’ transactions with text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Philadelphia, PA: Univer- sity of Pennsylvania. MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). The student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 150-159. Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111—151. Marchionini, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1988). Finding facts vs. browsing knowledge in hypertext systems. Computer; 21, 70-80. Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you don't understand: A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986-992. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading com- prehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996. Remedial and Spe- cial Education, 18, 197-214. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading com- prehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 10B, pp. 201-227). New York, NY: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30-42. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solv- ing. Instructional Science, 26, 46-63. Mayer, R. E. (2001). What good is educational psychology? The case of cognition and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 36, 83-88. Mayer, C., Akarnatsu, C. T., & Stewart, D. (2002). A model for effective practice: Dia- logic inquiry with students who are deaf. Exceptional Children, 68, 485-502. 168 McGee, L. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children's recall of exposi- tory text. Reading Research Quarterly, 1 7, 581-590. Mckenna, M. C., Kear, D. J ., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward read- ing: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-956. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1985). Star Wars: A developmental study of expert and nov- ice knowledge structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 746-757. Meng, Y.-R. (2002). Learning disabilities and remedy instruction. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu- Nan Book Inc. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case stuay research in education: A qualitative approach. Lon- don, England: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). Identification of the structure of prose and its implications for the study of reading and memory. Journal of Reading Behavior, 7, 7-47. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quar- terly, 16, 72-103. Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21,121-143. Migyankal, J. M., Policastrol, C., & Lui, G. (2005). Using a think-aloud with diverse students: Three primary grade students experience Chrysanthemum. Early Child- hood Education Journal, 33, 171-177. Mistier-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 459-479. Mohageg, M. F. (1992). The influence of hypertext linking structures on the efficiency of information retrieval. Human Factors, 34(3), 351-367. Mosenthal, P. B., & Kirsch, LS. (1991). Toward an explanatory model of document liter- acy. Discourse Processes, 14, 147-180. 169 Myers, M., & Paris, S. G. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690. National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Stats in brief: Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000090.pdf. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2003). Nation ’s report card: Reading 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/mainZ003/2005453.pdf. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2007). Nation ’s report card: Reading 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/mainZ007/2007496.pdf. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the Na- tional Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading in- struction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Naumann, A., Waniek, J ., & Krems, J. F. (2001). Knowledge acquisition, navigation and eye movements fi'om text and hypertext. In U. D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Di- mensions of Internet Science (pp. 293-304). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. Naumann, J ., Richter, T., Flender, J ., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 791-807. Nicolson, R. 1., Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, M. K. (2000). Evaluation of a computer- based reading intervention in infant and junior schools. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 194-209. Niederhauser, D., Salmen, D., & Reynolds, R. E. (1998, April). Reading comprehensions with hypertext: The eflect of strategic sophistication and metacognitive awareness on navigational profile. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Nielsen, J. (1995). Multimedia and hypertext: The Internet and beyond. Cambridge, MA: AP Professional. 170 ’ L Nielsen, J. (1997). How users read on the Web. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http ://www.useit.com/alertbox/97 l 0a.html. Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational text. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehen- sion instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 259-274). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Olinghouse, N.G. (2007). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing, doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1 Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Re- search, 66, 543—578. Paris, S. G., Carpenter, R. D., Paris, A. H., & Hamilton, E. E. (2005). Spurious and genu- ine correlates of children’s reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children ’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 131-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a: strategic reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. P. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical model and processes of reading (pp. 788-810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Con- temporary Educational Psychology 8, 293-316. Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strate- gies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5-22. 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 read- ing research (Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). White Plains, NY: Longman. Patterson, N. G. (2000). Hypertext and the changeling roles of readers. English Journal, 90, 74-80. 171 Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Jour- nal, 88, 151-165. Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Ka- mil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 815-860). New York: Longman. Pellegrini, A. D., Galda, L., & Rubin, D. L. (1984). Context in text: The development of oral and written language in two genres. Child Development, 55, 1549-1555. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford Press. Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D., & Bryk, A. S. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 8-39. Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A tum-of-the-century status report. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research- Based Practices (pp. 11-27). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to .say about reading instruction, (pp. 291-309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of con- structively responsive reading. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I. W., Schuder, T., Bergman, J , Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511-554. Pressley, M., & Hilden, KR. (2005). Commentary on three important directions in com- prehension assessment research. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children ’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 305-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its develop- ment through instruction. School of Psychology Review, 26, 448-467. 172 ——.All‘__ RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D pro- gram in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/1VIRl465.pdf. Reinking, D. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R.D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post- typographic world (pp. xi—xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 536-552. Richgels, D. J., McGee, L. M., Lomax, R. G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 177-196. Rouet, J.-F., & Levonen, J. J. (1996). Studying and learning with hypertext: Empirical studies and their implications. In J .-F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp.9-23). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates. Rouet, J.-F., Levonen, J ., Dillon, A., & Spiro, R. J. (Eds.) (1996). Hypertext and Cogni- tion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rowley, K., Carlson, P., & Miller, T. (1998). A cognitive technology to teach composi- tion skills: Four studies with the R-WISE writing tutor. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 259-296. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Ed, pp. 778-803). New York, NY: Macmil- lan. Schacter, J ., Chung, G. K., & Dorr, A. (1998). Children’s Internet searching on complex problems: Performance and process analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 840-849. Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003, December). Building a bridge: An explanation of the reading strategies used for Internet reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. 173 Shapiro, M. A. (1994). Think-aloud and thought-listing procedures in investigating men- tal processes. In A. Lang (Ed), Measuring psychological responses to media mes- sages (pp. 1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schmar, E. S. (2002). A collective case study of reading strategies used by skilled fifth graders reading on the Internet (Doctoral dissertation, Kansans State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 4227. Schroeder, E. E. (1994, February). Navigating through hypertext: navigational technique, individual dzfierences, and learning. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Sponsored by the Research and Theory Division, Nashville, TN. Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading serv- ices. Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 15-24. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60, 973- 980. Simpson, A., & McKnight, C. (1990). Navigation in hypertext: structural cues and mental maps. In R. McAleese & C. Green (Eds.), Hypertext: The state of the art mp. 74- 83). Oxford, England: Intellect Books Ltd. Slatin, J. (1991). Reading hypertext: Order and coherence in a new medium. In P. Delany and G. P. Landow (Eds.), Hypermedia and literary studies (pp. 153-170). Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press. Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Smith, P. L., & Friend, M. (1986). Training LD adolescents in strategy for using text structure to aid recall of instructional prose. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 38- 44. 174 Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, and imprint of Prentice Hall. Snyder, I. (1998). Beyond the hype: Reassessing hypertext. In Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy in the electronic era. London, England: Routledge. Spires, H. A., & Estes, T. (2002). Reading in Web-based learning environments. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Spiro, R. J. (2004). Principled pluralism for adaptive flexibility in teaching and learning. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (fifth ed., pp. 654—659). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Spiro, R. J ., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J ., & Anderson, D. (2004). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In R. B. Rud- dell (Ed.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (fifih ed., pp. 602-616). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Spiro, R. J ., Feltovich, P. J ., Jacobson, M. I., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibil- ity, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowl- edge acquisition in illstructured domains. Educational Technology, 35, 24-33. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technol- ogy for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (eds.), Cognition, Education, and Multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spiro, R. J ., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. K Britton & S. M. Ortony (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7-26. Spring, C., & Prager, J. (1992). Teaching community-college students to follow the train of thought in expository texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 33-54. 175 Stahl, S. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (2006). The “word factors”. In K. A. Stahl & M. McKenna (Eds.), Reading research at work (pp. 403-424). New York: Guilford Press. Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1982). What's in a story? An approach to comprehension. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of instruction (Vol. 2, pp. 213-268). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 292-317). New York: Longman. Street, B. (1999). New literacies in theory and practice. Linguistics and Education, 10, 1- 24. Sung, Y.-T., Lin, C.-S., Chang, K.-E., & Huang, J.-S. (2004). Reading comprehension assistive system with multiple strategies (Report no. NSC92-2520-SOO3-OO4). Taipei, Taiwan: National Science Council. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 662-669. Swanson, H. L. (1989). The effects of central processing strategies on learning disabled, mildly retarded, average and gifted children’s elaborative encoding abilities. Jour- nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 370-397. Swanson, H. L., & Ashbaker, M. H. (2000). Working memory, short-term memory, speech rate, word recognition, and reading comprehension in learning disabled readers: Does the executive system have a role? Intelligence, 28, 1-30. Taylor, B. M. (1980). Children’s memory for expository text afier reading. Reading Re— search Quarterly, 15, 399-411. Taylor, B. M., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children’s use of text structure in the recall ofex- pository material. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 517-528. Taylor, B. M., & Williams, JP. (1983). Comprehension of learning-disabled readers: Task and text variations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 743-751. 176 Thuring, M., Haake, J. M., & Hannemann, J. (1991, December). What’s Eliza doing in the Chinese room? Incoherent hyperdocuments — and how to avoid them. In Pro- ceedings of Hypertext 91 ’ (pp. 161-177). San Antonio, Texas: ACM Press. Tierney, R. J., & Cunningham, J. W. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehen- sion. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-656). New York: Longman. Torgesen, J. K., (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 45-52. Torgesen, J. K., & Licht, B. (1983). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Retrospect and Prospects. In J. D. Makinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (V 01. 1, pp. 3-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-158. United States Department of Commerce (2002). Understanding broadband demand: A review of critical issues. Technology Administration, Office of Technology Policy. Retrieved December 1 1, 2007, from http://www.ta.doc.gov/reports/TechPolicy/Broadband_020921 .pdf. United States Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 21, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb. United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004). T o- ward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law, and to- day ’s students are revolutionizing expectations. National Education Technology Plan 2004. Unrau, N. (2004). Content area reading and writing: Fostering literacies in middle and high school cultures. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. van Oostendorp, H., & de Mul, S. (Eds.) (1996). Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. 177 Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (in press). The interactive strategies approach to read- ing intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Voss, J. F., Vesonder, G. T., & Spilich, G. T. (1980). Text generation and recall by high- knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1 7, 651-667. Vygotsky, LS. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological proc- esses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 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, 75- 104. Wang, Y.-C. (2000). A comparative stuay of reading comprehension strategies used by elementary reading disabled and proficient reading students (Master dissertation, National Changhua University of Education, 2000). Wang, P., Hawk, W. B., & Tenopir, C. (2000). Users' interactions with World Wide Web resources: An exploratory study using a holistic approach. Information Processing and Management, 36, 229-251. Warren, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (1997). Helping parents to read expository literature to their children: Promoting main-idea and detail understanding. Reading Research and In- struction, 36, 341-360. Warschauer, M. (2003a). Demystifying the digital divide. Scientific American, 42-47. Warschauer, M. (2003b). Dissecting the digital Divide: A case study in Egypt. The Information Society, I 9, 297-304. Warschauer, M. (2003c). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Boston, MA: MIT Press. 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. 178 Web-based Education Commission (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Mov- ingfrom promise to practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Re- trieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport/index.html. Wells, A. T., & Chen, H.-Y. (2007). A preliminary study of technology and computer use among teens: A case study. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers: Volume I at the Association for Educational Communications and Tech- nology (AECT) Convention, Anaheim, CA. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of educa- tion. NYC, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp. 51-85). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in a classroom: A sociocul- tural approach. In P. L. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159-174) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Westby, C. (2004). A language perspective on executive functioning, metacognition, and self-regulation in reading. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 398-427). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Wilhelm, J. D. (2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York: Scholastic. Williams, J. P. (1993). Comprehension of students with or without learning disabilities: Identification of narrative themes and idiosyncratic text representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 631-641. Williams, J. P. (1998). Improving the comprehension of disabled readers. Annals of Dys- Iexia, 48, 213-218. 179 Williams, J. P. (2003). Teaching text structure to improve reading comprehension. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities. (pp. 293-305). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 6-18. Wilson, V. L., & Rupley, W. H. (1997). A structural equation model for reading compre- hension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge. Scientific Stud- ies of Reading, I, 45-63. Winograd, P. N., & Bridge, C. A. (1986). The comprehension of information in written prose. In J. F. Baumann (Ed.), Teaching main idea comprehension (pp. 18-48). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Wise, B. W., & Olson, R. K. (1995) Computer-based phonological awareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia 45, 99-122. Wong, B. L. (1994). Instructional parameters promoting transfer of learned strategies in students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1 7, 110-120. Wong, B. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage or- ganization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 477- 482. Wong, B. L., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning disabled adolescents’ composing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 300- 322. Wright, P. (1991). Cognitive overheads and prostheses: Some issues in evaluating hyper- texts. In R. Furuta & D. Stotts (Eds.), Proceedings of the third ACM Conference on Hypertext (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: ACM Press. Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. H. (1992). Effects of passage type on comprehension moni- toring and recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 373- 391. 180 Zellweger, P. T. (1989). Scripted documents: A hypermedia path mechanism, in N. Mey- rowitz, ed., Hypertext '89 Proceedings (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. 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, 128-162. 181 MMMMMMMMMM lll“Willi“lllllllllllllll‘lfilEs