The rapid pace of technological change, undergirded by near ubiquitous access to the web, is producing a new learning ecology—a new ecology of information, of knowledge, of reading, of teaching, and of thinking. This instant availability of digital resources frees both time and cognitive energy that may be used to facilitate higher order thinking. This article provides a framework through which to better understand, evaluate, and scaffold the generative synthesis of knowledge in a web-mediated world.
Purpose/Objective
The purpose of this article is to describe a theory that can stimulate additional scholarly work examining higher order, or generative, thinking in web-mediated environments.
Research Design
The author outlines theory development based on two explicit steps. First, he reviews scholarly literature from educational psychology, reading comprehension, hypertext and web-based reading, cognitive flexibility, and creativity. Based on this process, he develops a proto-theory for web-based synthesis. Then, using this three-fold operationalization of synthesis, the author reports findings from a multiple-case study of advanced learners on the web, resulting in further elaboration of the concept of web-based knowledge synthesis.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The author proposes a theory of web-mediated knowledge synthesis comprising seven interacting elements: (a) divergent keyword search phrases; (b) synthesis for meaning; (c) in-the-moment insights; (d) repurposing; (e) reinforcement; (f) note-taking; and (g) creative synthesis. Through these elements, this theory provides a road map for further exploration of how web users can construct knowledge that adds value to the information they encounter every day.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsA. (2001). Decision making in multi-party regional water conflicts. In MarinoM. & SimonovicS. (Eds.), Integrated water resources management. International Association of Hydrological Sciences Pub No. 272.
2.
AfflerbachP., & ChoB. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In IsraelS. E. & DuffyG. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
AlmericoG. M., BakerR. K. (2004). Bloom's taxonomy illustrative verbs: Developing a comprehensive list for educator use. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(4), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.fate1.org/journals/2004/almerico1.pdf
5.
AmabileT. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
6.
AmabileT. M., ContiR., CoonH., LazenbyJ., & HerronM. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
7.
AmerA. (2006). Reflections on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(4), 213–230.
AndersonL. W., & KrathwohlD.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
10.
BallS. J. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255–271.
11.
BanduraA. (1994). Self-efficacy. In RamachaudranV. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
12.
BarbourR.S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117.
13.
BarnettS. M., & CeciS. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.
14.
BeghettoR. A., & KaufmanJ. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79.
15.
BereiterC., & ScardamaliaM. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In CorteE. D., VerschaffelL., EntwistleN., & MerriënboerJ. V. (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 73–78). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
16.
BesemerS. P., & O'QuinK. (1989). The development, reliability and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 268–279.
17.
BlaufusK., & OrtliebR. (2009). Is simple better? A conjoint analysis of the effects of tax complexity on employee preferences concerning company pension plans. Schmalenbach Business Review, 61(1), 60–83.
18.
BloomB. S., EngelhartM. D., FurstE. J., HillW. H., & KrathwohlD. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
19.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
20.
BolterJ. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of visual literacy. In ReinkingD., McKennaM., LabboL., & KiefferR. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 3–14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
BookerM. (2007). A roof without walls: Benjamin Bloom's taxonomy and the misdirection of American education. Academic Questions, 20(4), 347–355.
22.
BromageB. K., & MayerR. E. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition on learning from technical text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 271–278.
23.
BrophyJ. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
BrownJ. S. (2000, March/April). Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, 10–20.
25.
BrunerJ. S. (1962). On knowing. Essays for the left hand.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
Bulterman-BosJ. A. (2008). Will a clinical approach make education research more relevant for practice?Educational Researcher, 37(7), 412–420.
27.
CarrN. (2008). Is Google making us stupid? What the internet is doing to our brains. The Atlantic, 301(6), 56–63.
28.
CarrN. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: Norton.
29.
CastekJ. (2008). How are the new literacies of online reading comprehension acquired by 4th and 5th grade students? Exploring the contexts that facilitate learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
30.
ChalmersA. F. (1976). What is this thing called science?Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
31.
ChenH., WigandR. T., & NilanM. S. (1999). Optimal experience of web activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 585–608.
32.
ChoB. Y. (2011). Adolescents’ constructively responsive reading strategy use in a critical Internet reading task (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland.
CoiroJ. (2007). Exploring changes to reading comprehension on the Internet: Paradoxes and possibilities for diverse adolescent readers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.
35.
CoiroJ. (2008). Teaching critical evaluation on the Internet: Blending strategy instruction with collaborative inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.lite.iwarp.com/CoiroVT2008.html
36.
CoiroJ. (2009, December). Purposeful, critical and flexible: New standards for online thinking, teaching and theory. In The near future for literacy in an age of rapid technological change: Points of substantial disjuncture form traditional view of literacy and most urgently needed new directions for research. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
37.
CoiroJ. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 107–115.
38.
CoiroJ., & DoblerE. (2007). Exploring the comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers as they search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.
39.
CoiroJ., KnobelM., LankshearC., & LeuD. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.New York, NY: Harper & Row.
41.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
42.
DavisF. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9, 185–197.
43.
DeciE. L., & RyanR. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
44.
DeSchryverM. (2012). Toward a theory of web-mediated knowledge synthesis: How advanced learners used the web to construct knowledge about climate change behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3548603)
45.
DeSchryverM., & MishraP. (2008, March). Googling creativity: An investigation of how pre-service mathematics teachers use the web to generate creative ways to teach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
46.
DeSchryverM., & SpiroR.J. (2008). New forms of deep learning on the web: Meeting the challenge of cognitive load in conditions of unfettered exploration. In ZhengR. (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 134–152). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
47.
DesjarlaisM., & WilloughbyT. (2010). A longitudinal study of the relation between adolescent boys and girls’ computer use with friends and friendship quality: Support for the social compensation or the rich-get richer hypothesis?Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 896–905.
48.
DoleJ. A., DuffyG. G., RoehlerL. R., & PearsonP. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.
49.
DukeN. K., & PearsonD. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In FarstrupA. E. & SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
50.
DwyerB. (2010). Scaffolding Internet reading: A study of a disadvantaged school community in Ireland (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nottingham, England.
51.
DyeJ. F., SchatzI. M., RosenbergB. A., & ColemanS. T. (2000). Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-1/dye.html
52.
EdyburnD. L. (2003). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in mathematics. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 76–79.
FriedmanT. (2005). The world is fat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
57.
FurstE. J. (1994). Bloom's taxonomy: Philosophical and educational issues. In AndersonL. W. & SosniakL. A. (Eds.), Bloom's taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 28–40). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58.
GlisterP. (2000). Digital literacy. In PeaR. (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and learning (pp. 215–225). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
59.
GraesserA. C., & KreuzR. J. (1993). A theory of inference generation during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 16, 145–160.
60.
GraesserA. C., MillisK. K., & ZwaanR. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.
61.
GriffithsJ. R., & BrophyP. (2005). Student searching behavior and the web: Use of academic resources and Google. Library Trends, 53, 539–554.
62.
GuilfordJ. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
63.
GuineeK., EagletonM. B., & HallT. E. (2003). Adolescents’ Internet search strategies: Drawing upon familiar cognitive paradigms when accessing electronic information sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 363–374.
64.
GuntherR. E. (2011). The truth about your emotions when making decisions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
65.
HagermanM. S. (2014). Disruptive promise: The LINKS intervention and its impact on multiple, multimodal, Internet text integration (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (1525819513)
66.
HanochY., WoodS., BarnesA., LiuP., & RiceT. (2011). Choosing the right Medicare prescription drug program: The effect of age, strategy selection, and choice set size. Health Psychology, 30, 719–727.
67.
HartmanD. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 520–561.
68.
HartmanD. K. (2000). What will be the influences of media on literacy in the next millennium?Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 280–282.
69.
HartmanD., MorsinkP., & ZhengJ. (2010). From print to pixels: The evolution of cognitive conceptions of reading comprehension. In BakerE. (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspective on research and practice (p. 131–164). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
70.
HenryL. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59, 614–627.
71.
HidiS., & AndersonV. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations and implications for instruction, Review of Educational Research, 56, 473–493.
72.
HidiS., & RenningerK. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
73.
HofstadterD. R. (1985). Variations on a theme as the crux of creativity. In HofstadterD. R., Metamagical themas (pp. 232–259). New York, NY: Basic Books.
74.
HollanderR. (2004). Social genomics: Genomic inventions in society. The nature of what's to come. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4), 485–496.
75.
HoweM. J. A. (1970). Repeated presentation and recall of meaningful prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 214–219.
76.
HuangA., YenD., & HungS. (2012). Research issues of Internet-integrated cognitive style. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1547–1554.
77.
JunivoI. (2006). Development of a cognitive model for navigating on the web (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
78.
KiewraK. (1989). A review of note-taking. The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 147–172.
79.
KintschE., & KintschW. (1996). Learning from text. In DeCorteE. & WeinertF. E. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 519–524). Kidlington, England: Pergamon Press.
80.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
81.
KimH. S., & KamilM. L. (1999, December). Exploring hypertext reading and strategy use for structured vs. unstructured texts. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
82.
KohK. (2012). Theory-to-research-to-theory strategy: A research-based expansion of radical change theory. Library & Information Science Research, 35, 33–40.
83.
KrathwohlD. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
84.
KressG. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In CopeB. & KalantzisM. (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 155–156). London, England: Routledge.
85.
KuhnM. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18–21.
86.
KuiperE., & VolmanM. (2008). The web as a source of information for students in K–12 education. In CoiroJ., KnobelM., LankshearC., & LeuD. (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 241–266). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
87.
KuiperE., VolmanM., & TerwelJ. (2005). The web as an information resources in K–12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285–328.
88.
KuiperE., VolmanM., & TerwelJ. (2009). Developing web literacy in collaborative inquiry activities. Computers & Education, 52, 668–680.
89.
LandowG. P. (2005). Hypertext 3.0: Critical theory and new media in an era of globalization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
90.
LankshearC., & KnobelM. (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practice.New York, NY: Peter Lang.
91.
LawlessK., & BrownS. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25(2), 117–131.
92.
LessigL. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: Penguin Press.
93.
LeuD. J.Jr., KinzerC. K., CoiroJ., & CammackD. W. (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. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/leu
94.
LeuD. J., McVerryJ. G., O'ByrneW. I., ZawilinskiL., CastekJ., & HartmanD. K. (2009). The new literacies of online reading comprehension and the irony of No Child Left Behind: Students who require our assistance the most, actually receive it the least. In MorrowL. M., RuedaR., & LappD. (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy instruction: Issues of diversity, policy, and equity (pp. 173–194). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
95.
LeuD. J., ReinkingD., CarterA., CastekJ., CoiroJ., HenryL. A., … ZawilinskiL. (2007, April). Defining online reading comprehension: Using think aloud verbal protocols to refine a preliminary model of Internet reading comprehension processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
96.
LeuD. J., ZawilinskiL., CastekJ., BanerjeeM., HousandB., LiuY., & O'NeilM. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In RushL., EakleJ., & BergerA. (Eds.), Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practices (pp. 37–68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/docs/whatsnewaboutonlinereadingcomprehension.pdf
97.
LubartT. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 339–350). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
98.
LubartT. I., & SternbergR. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. In SmithS. M., WardT. B., & FinkeR. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 269–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MakanyT., KempJ., & DrorI. E. (2009). Optimizing the use of note-taking as an external cognitive aid for increasing learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 619–635.
101.
MarzanoR., & KendallJ. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
102.
MegnigbetoE. (2006). Internet-based resources citation by undergraduate students: A case study of library and information science students in Benin. International Information and Library Review, 38(2), 49–55.
103.
MeleisA. I. (2007). Theoretical nursing: Development and progress (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
104.
MerriamS. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
105.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
106.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In CarlsenR. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214–2226). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
107.
MitroffI., AlpasianM., & GreenS. (2004). Managing crises in the twenty-first century. International Studies Review, 6(6), 165–194.
108.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.
NachmiasR., & GiladA. (2002). Needle in a hyperstack: Searching for information on the World Wide Web. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 475–486.
111.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital.New York, NY: Knopf.
112.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
113.
OlsonD. (2003). Psychological theory and educational reform: How school remakes mind and society.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
114.
OsbornA. (1953). Applied imagination. New York, NY: Scribner's.
115.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
116.
PerfettiC. A., RouetJ.-F., & BrittM. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In van OostendorpH. & GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
117.
PerkinsD., & SalomonG. (1994). Transfer of learning. In HusenT. & PostlethwaiteT. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 6452–6457). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
PhillipsR., KennedyG., & McNaughtC. (2012). The role of theory in learning technology evaluation research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1103–1118. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/phillips.html
120.
PluckerJ., BeghettoR. A., & DowG. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.
121.
PurvesA. C. (1998). The web of text and the web of God: An essay on the third information transformation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
122.
RawsonK. A., DunloskyJ., & ThiedeK. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004–1010.
123.
ReinkingD. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In ReinkingD., McKennaM. C., LabboL. D., & KiefferR. D. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic world (pp. xi–xx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
124.
RittelH. W. J., & WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
125.
Root-BernsteinR. S, & Root-BernsteinM. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world's most creative people.New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
126.
RouetJ-F. (2006). The skills of document use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
127.
SawyerK. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
SegalE. (2004). Incubation in insight problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 141–148.
132.
SelwynN. (2008). An investigation of differences in undergraduates’ academic use of the internet. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(11), 11–22.
133.
SmithS. M. (1995). Fixation, incubation, and insight in memory and creative thinking. In SmithS. M., WardT. B., & FinkeR. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 135–156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
134.
SparrowB., LiuJ., & WegnerD. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778.
135.
SpiresH., OliverK., & CornJ. (2011). The new learning ecology of 1:1 computing environments: Preparing teachers for shifting dynamics & relationships. Journal of Digital Learning and Teacher Education, 28(2), 63–72.
136.
SpiroR. J. (2006a). The “New Gutenberg Revolution”: Radical new learning, thinking, teaching, and training with technology… bringing the future near. Educational Technology, 46(1), 3–4.
137.
SpiroR. J. (2006b). The post-Gutenberg world of the mind: The shape of the new learning. Educational Technology, 46(2), 3–4.
138.
SpiroR. J. (2006c). Old ways die hard. Educational Technology, 46(3), 3–4.
139.
SpiroR. J. (2006d). Approaching the post-Gutenberg mind: The revolution is in progress. Educational Technology, 46(4), 3–4.
140.
SpiroR.J. (2006e). The “New Gutenberg Revolution”: Radical new learning, thinking, teaching, and training with technology … bringing the future near. Educational Technology, 46(6), 3–5.
141.
SpiroR. J., CollinsB. P., & RamchandranA. R. (2006). Modes of openness and flexibility in “cognitive flexibility hypertext” learning environments. In KhanB. (Ed.), Flexible learning in an information society (pp. 18–25). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
142.
SpiroR. J., CoulsonR. L., FeltovichP. J., & AndersonD. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In PatelV. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
143.
SpiroR., & DeSchryverM. (2010). Advanced cognitive and metacognitive processes for deep learning on the web. In At the intersection of literacy & technology: Research developments from the literacy achievement research center. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Fort Worth, TX.
144.
SpiroR. J., FeltovichP. J., JacobsonM. J., & CoulsonR. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In DuffyT. & JonassenD. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reprinted from a special issue of the Educational Technology on Constructivism, 1991.
145.
SpiroR. J., & JehngJ. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In NixD. & SpiroR. J. (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Explorations in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
146.
SternbergR. J. (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
147.
SternbergR. J., & LubartT. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In SternbergJ. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
148.
StromsoH. I., & BratenI. (2002). Norwegian law students’ use of multiple sources while reading expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 208–227.
149.
StromsoH. I., BratenI., & SamuelstuenM. S. (2003). Students’ strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 113–147.
ThalerR. H., SunsteinC. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
152.
ThiemanG. (2008). Using technology as a tool for learning and developing 21st century skills: An examination of technology use by pre-service teachers with their K-12 students. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 342–366.
153.
van dijkT. A., & KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.New York, NY: Academic Press.
154.
Van ScoyocA. (2006). The electronic academic library: Undergraduate research behavior in a library without books. Libraries and the Academy, 6(1), 47–58.
155.
WallasG. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
156.
WardT. B., SmithS. M., & FinkeR. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
157.
WarschauerM. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 41–49.
158.
WeisbergR. W. (1995). Prolegomena to theories of insight in problem solving: A taxonomy of problems. In SternbergR. J. & DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 157–196). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
159.
WeisbergR. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
160.
WeisbergR. W., & AlbaJ. W. (1981, June). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 169–192.
161.
WenJ. (2003). Post-valued recall web pages: User disorientation hits the big time. ITandSociety, 1, 184–194.
162.
WengerM. J., & PayneD. G. (1996). Comprehension and retention of nonlinear text: Considerations of working memory and material-appropriate processing. American Journal of Psychology, 109(1), 93–130.
163.
WhiteR. W., & DruckerS. M. (2007). Investigating behavioral variability in web search. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, 21–30.
164.
WineburgS. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.
165.
WolfeM. B. W., & GoldmanS. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467–502.
166.
ZhangS., & DukeN. K. (2011). The impact of instruction in the WWWDOT framework on students’ disposition and ability to evaluate web sites as sources of information. Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 132–154.
