This study examined the social and cognitive interaction patterns of third, fourth, and fifth graders as they collaboratively read on the Internet and responded to an inquiry prompt. Data analysis revealed patterns of cognitive strategy use that intersected with social forms and functions of dialogue. Dyads that exhibited higher levels of cognitive strategy use and mutually collaborative social interactions were better able to accomplish the inquiry task. Pairs who read with little or no meaningful discussion were less successful. These contrasting cases show the range of interaction patterns that may occur during co-constructive inquiry-based online reading. Findings can inform the design of instructional scaffolds to foster productive dialogue and strategic reading in online spaces.
AlexanderP. A., & JettonT. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In KamilM. L., MosenthalP., PearsonP. D., & BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
BrunerJ. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
CastekJ. (2008). How do 4th and 5th grade students acquire the new literacies of online reading comprehension? Exploring the contexts that facilitate learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
6.
CastekJ., CoiroJ., GuzniczakL., & BradshawC. (2012). Examining peer collaboration in online inquiry. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 479–496.
7.
ChoB.-Y. (2011, December 3). A study of adolescents’ constructive strategy use in a critical Internet reading task. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Fort Worth, TX.
8.
CoiroJ. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(4), 352–392.
9.
CoiroJ., CastekJ., & GuzniczakL. (2011). Uncovering online reading comprehension processes: Two adolescents reading independently and collaboratively on the Internet. 60th Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 354–369).
10.
CoiroJ., & DoblerE. (2007). Exploring the online comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.
11.
CoiroJ., GuzniczakL. A., & CastekJ. (2010, December). Exploring comprehension processes and dialogic interactions among two dyads of adolescents reading online to solve information problems. Paper presented in J. E. McEneaney (Chair), Reading for information in online text. Alternative session presented at the 60th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Fort Worth, TX.
12.
CoiroJ., KnobelM., LankshearC., & LeuD. J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research in new literacies.New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS). (2010). Common Core State Standards: Preparing America's students for college and career. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
DaltonB., & ProctorP. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the age of new literacies. In CoiroJ., KnobelM., LankshearC., & LeuD. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 297–323). New York, NY: Routledge.
DwyerB. (2010). Scaffolding Internet reading: A study of a disadvantaged school community in Ireland (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
18.
EagletonM. B. (2003). Essential literacies in the digital age: Adolescents’ Internet inquiry strategies. Paper presented at the 53rd annual National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
19.
FosterJ. (2009). Understanding interaction in information seeking and use as a discourse: A dialogic approach. Journal of Documentation, 65(1), 83–105.
20.
GoldmanS., BraaschJ., WileyJ., GraesserA., & BrodowinskaK. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381.
21.
GranottN. (1993). Patterns of interaction in the co-construction of knowledge: Separate minds, joint effort, and weird creatures. In WozniakR. H., & FischerK. W. (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 183–207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
GuthrieJ.T., WigfieldA., BarbosaP., PerencevichK. C., TaboadaA., DavisM. H., ScafiddiN.T., & TonksS. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.
KiiliC., LaurinenL., MarttunenM., & LeuD. J. (2012). Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 1–36.
27.
KingsleyT. (2011). Integrating new literacy instruction to support online reading comprehension: An examination of online literacy performance in 5th grade classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
28.
KozulinA. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
KressG., & Van LeeuwenT. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication.London, UK: Arnold Publishers.
30.
KuiperE., VolmanM., & TerwelJ. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K–12 education: Strategics for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285–328.
31.
LeuD. J.Jr., KinzerC. K., CoiroJ., CastekJ., & HenryL. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In RuddellR. B., & AlvermannD. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Sixth Ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
32.
LemkeJ. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In MartinJ. R., & VeelR. (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). London, UK: Routledge.
33.
MercerN. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners.Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
34.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Case study research in education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
35.
MinstrellJ., & Van ZeeE. H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science.Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
36.
MiyakeN. (1986). Constructive interaction and the iterative processes of understanding. Cognitive Science, 10, 151–177.
37.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
38.
PressleyM. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In BarrR., KamilM. L., MosenthalP., & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545–562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
PressleyM., & AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
41.
RosenblattL. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
42.
SelfeC. L., & HawisherG. E. (2004). Literate lives in the information age: Narratives of literacy from the United States.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
SoterA., WilkinsonI. A. G., MurphyK., RudgeL., ReningerK., & EdwardsM. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 372–391.
44.
SteffensC. (2012). A collective case study observing the print and online comprehension of four second-graders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University, New York, NY.
45.
TeschR. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software.New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
WalravenA., Brand-GruwelS., & BoshuizenH. P. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52, 234–246.
48.
WellsG. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue, and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50, 244–274.
49.
WellsG., & ArauzM. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of Learning Sciences, 25(3), 379–428.
50.
WoodL. A., & KrogerR. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
51.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research, design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
52.
ZhangS., & DukeN. K. (2008). Strategies for Internet reading for different purposes: A descriptive study of twelve good Internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 128–162.
