This descriptive study explored different reading strategies 12 adult good Internet readers used while doing 3 Internet reading tasks, each with a different reading purpose: seeking specific information, acquiring general knowledge, and being entertained. This study investigated whether readers' strategies differed by reading purpose. Purposive selection was used in selecting adult, good, experienced Internet readers to participate in the study. The design of the study allowed for inclusion of additional participants if it was found that new reading strategies were still being identified by the 12th reader (they were not). Data were collected through navigational records and participants' stimulated recall following the three tasks about their reading process. More than 50 strategies were identified. Some strategies were used across purposes; others were not. In addition, readers adopted different patterns of reading strategies for different reading purposes. Results of the study suggest that it may be helpful to teach developing Internet readers to be aware of their purposes for Internet reading, and to use different Internet reading strategies because of their purpose for reading, though future research needs to be conducted to ascertain whether teaching these strategies really results in improved Internet reading skills. Results of the study also add to the research base regarding which Internet reading strategies may be worth teaching.
References
1.
AfflerbachP. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 168–180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
AltunA. (2000). Patterns in cognitive processes and strategies in hypertext reading: A case study of two experienced computer users. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,9, 35–55.
3.
AlvermannD. (Ed.). (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world.New York: Peter Lang.
4.
BarabS. A.YoungM. F.WangJ. (1999). The effects of navigational and generative activities in hypertext learning on problem solving and comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media,26, 283–301.
5.
CalisirF.GurelZ. (2003). Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Computers in Human Behavior,19, 135–145.
6.
CoiroJ.DoblerE. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly,42, 214–257.
7.
CoiroJ. (2003). Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher,56, 458–464.
8.
ConklinJ. (1986). A survey of hypertext. (MCC Technical Report No. STP-456–86). Austin, TX: MCC Software Technology Program.
9.
DukeN. K. (2005). Comprehension of what for what: Comprehension as a non-unitary construct. In ParisS.StahlS. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 93–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
11.
DukeN. K.PressleyM.HildenK. (2004). Difficulties with reading comprehension. In StoneC. A.SillimanE. R.EhrenB. J.ApelK. (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 501–520). New York: Guilford.
12.
DukeN. K.Schmar-DoblerE.ZhangS. (2006). Comprehension and technology. In MckennaM. C.LabboL. D.KiefferR. D.ReinkingD. (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology, Vol. 2 (pp. 317–326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education,7, 6–10.
14.
HofmanR.Van OostendorpH. (1999). Cognitive effects of a structural overview in a hypertext. British Journal of Educational Technology,30, 129–140.
15.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,2, 127–160.
JaynesJ. T. (1989). Limited freedom: Linear reflections on nonlinear texts. In BarrettE. (Ed.), The Society of text: Hypertext, hypermedia and the social construction of information, (pp. 148–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
KamilM.LaneD. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In ReinkingD. R.LabboL. D.MckennaM. C.KiefferR. (Eds.), Literacy for the 21st century: Technological transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323–342). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
KeithM. (1998, November). Stimulated recall and teachers' thought processes: A critical review of the methodology and an alternative perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Louisville, KY.
20.
KlobasJ. E.ClydeL. A. (2001). Social influence and Internet use. Library Management,22, 61–68.
21.
KucanL.BeckI. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research,67, 217–299.
22.
LangerJ. A. (1985). Children's sense of genre: A study of performance on parallel reading and writing. Written Communication,2, 157–187.
23.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
24.
LeuD. J. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the Internet. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsJ. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 310–336). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
25.
LeuD. J.CastekJ.HartmanD. K.CoiroJ.HenryL. A.KulikowichJ. M.LyverS. (2005). Evaluating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning. Final Research Report. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory/Learning Point Associates.
26.
LeuD. J.CoiroJ.CastekJ.HartmanD. K.HenryL. A.ReinkingD. (in press). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In BlockC. C.ParrisS.AfflerbachP. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices.New York: Guilford Press.
27.
LeuD. J.KinzerC. K.CoiroJ.CammackD. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In RuddellR. B.UnrauN. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, (5th ed.) (pp. 1568–1611). International Reading Association: Newark, DE.
28.
McdonaldS.StevensonR. (1998). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors,40, 18–27.
29.
MohagegM. F. (1992). The influence of hypertext linking structures on the efficiency of information retrieval. Human Factors.34, 351–367.
30.
MillerC. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech,70, 151–167.
31.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000, April). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication. No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: Author.
32.
NarvaezD.Van Den BroekP.RuizA. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,91, 488–496.
33.
New Literacies Research Team CastekJ.CoiroJ.HartmanD. K.HenryL. A.LeuD. J.ZawilinskiL. (2007). New literacies, new challenges, and new opportunities. In SampsonM. B.LinderP. E.Falk-RossF.FooteM. M.SzaboS. (Eds.), Multiple literacies in the 21st century: Twenty-eighth yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 31–50). Logan, UT: College Reading Association.
34.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review.66, 60–92.
35.
OzokA. A.SalvendyG. (2003). The effect of language inconsistency on performance and satisfaction on the World Wide Web: Results from three experiments. Behavior and Information Technology,22, 155–163.
36.
ParéA.SmartG. (1994). Observing genres in action: Towards a research methodology. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 146–154). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
37.
PattersonN. G. (2000). Hypertext and the changing roles of readers. English Journal,90, 74–80.
38.
PotelleH.RouetJ. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers' prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,58, 327–345.
39.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading.Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
PressleyM.DukeN. K.GaskinsI. W.FingeretL.HalladayJ.HildenK.ParkY.ZhangS.MohanL.ReffittK.BogaertL. R.ReynoldsJ.GolosD.SolicK.CollinsS. (in press). Working with struggling readers: Why we must get beyond the Simple View of Reading and visions of how it might be done. In GutkinT.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), The Handbook of school psychology, (4th ed.) NY: Wiley.
41.
PressleyM. P.HildenK. (2004). Verbal protocols of reading. In DukeN. K.MalletteM. H. (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 308–321). New York: Guilford.
42.
RAND Reading Study Group [RRSG]. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Schmar-DoblerE. (2003, December). Building a bridge: An exploration of the reading strategies used for Internet reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
45.
Schmar-DoblerE. (2003). Reading on the Internet; The link between literacy and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,47, 80–85.
46.
SlatinJ. (1991). Reading hypertext: Order and coherence in a New Medium. In DelaneyP.LandowG. P. (Eds.), Hypermedia and literary studies (pp. 153–170). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
47.
SpiroR. J. (2006). The post-Gutenberg world of the mind: The shape of the new learning. Educational Technology,46 (2), 3–4.
48.
SpruijtS.JansenC. (1999). The influence of task and format on reading results with an online text. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,42, 92–99.
49.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
50.
Sutherland-SmithW. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher,55, 662–669.
51.
Van Den BroekP.VirtueS.EversonM.TzengY.SungY. (2002). Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. In OteroJ.LeonJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 131–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
Van NimwegenC.PouwM.Van OostendorpH. (1999). The influence of structure and reading-manipulation on usability of hypertexts. Interacting with Computers,12, 7–21.
53.
WaniekJ.BrunsteinA.NaumannA.KremsJ. F. (2003). Interaction between text structure representation and situation model in hypertext reading. Swiss Journal of Psychology,62, 103–111.
54.
ZumbachJ.ReimannP.KochS. (2001). Influence of passive versus active information access to hypertextual information resources on cognitive and emotional parameters. Journal of Educational Computing Research,25, 301–318.
