Previous work provided foundations for the theory of web-mediated knowledge synthesis, a framework for using the web in more creative and generative ways. This article explores specific instances of the various elements of that theory in a single case from the initial study. That is, a thorough exploration of think-aloud, screen capture, and interview data from a single study participant provides a rich description of how divergent key word search phrases, synthesis for meaning, in-the-moment insights, repurposing, reinforcement, and note-taking worked in concert to support creative syntheses of knowledge about ill-structured topics when learning on the web. Furthermore, 10 implications of this analysis for related curriculum and research design are provided.
BloomB. S.KrathwohlD. R. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain, New York, NY: Longmans.
4.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (2003) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods, 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
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 Quarterly42: 214–257.
6.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal experience, New York, NY: Harper & Row.
7.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1997) Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention, New York, NY: Harper Collins.
8.
DeSchryver, M. (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).
9.
DeSchryverM. (2015a) Higher-order thinking in an online world: Toward a theory of web-mediated knowledge synthesis. Teachers College Record117(3): 1–44.
10.
DeSchryverM. (2015b) Web-mediated knowledge synthesis for educators. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy58(5): 388–396.
11.
DeSchryver, M. (2015c). The digital divide is increasingly about usage: Creative synthesis as an essential literacy to bridge gaps in sophisticated Internet skills development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Carlsbad, CA.
12.
DoleJ. A.DuffyG. G.RoehlerL. R.PearsonP. D. (1991) Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research61: 239–264.
13.
DukeN. K.PearsonD. (2002) Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In: FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (eds) What research has to say about reading instruction, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 205–242.
14.
Dye, J. F., Schatz, I. M., Rosenberg, B. A., & Coleman, S. 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.
15.
GlisterP. (2000) Digital literacy. In: PeaR. (ed.) The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and learning, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Graham, J. (2016, June 1). Amazon’s Bezos: A.I.s impact is ‘gigantic.’ USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com.
17.
HartmanD. K. (1995) Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly30: 520–561.
18.
HenryL. A. (2006) SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. The Reading Teacher59: 614–627.
19.
HidiS.AndersonV. (1986) Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research56: 473–493.
20.
Johansson, R. (2003). Case study methodology. Keynote address presented at the International Conference on Methodologies in Housing Research, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
21.
KintschW. (1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
KintschE.KintschW. (1996) Learning from text. In: DeCorteE.WeinertF. E. (eds) International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology, Kidlington, Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 519–524.
23.
KressG. (2000) Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In: CopeB.KalantzisM. (eds) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, London, England: Routledge, pp. 155–156.
24.
LeuD. J.McVerryJ. G.O’ByrneW. I.KiiliC.ZawilinskiL.Everett-CacopardoH.ForzaniE. (2011) The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy55: 5–14.
25.
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, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, pp. 37–68. Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies.uconn.edu/docs/whatsnewaboutonlinereading comprehension.pdf.
26.
MerriamS. B. (1988) Case study research in education: A qualitative approach, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27.
MishraP.KoehlerM. J. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record108(6): 1017–1054.
28.
MorganD. L. (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research1(1): 48–76.
29.
PerkinsD.SalomonG. (1994) Transfer of learning. In: HusenT.PostelwhiteT. N. (eds) The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.,Vol. 11, Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp. 6452–6457.
30.
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.
31.
RouetJ.-F. (2006) The skills of document use, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spiro, R., & DeSchryver, M. (2010). Advanced cognitive and metacognitive processes for deep learning on the web. In the intersection of literacy & technology: Research developments from the literacy achievement research center. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Forth Worth, TX.
35.
SpiroR. J. (2006) The “New Gutenberg Revolution”: Radical new learning, thinking, teaching, and training with technology…bringing the future near. Educational Technology46(6): 3–5.
36.
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, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 163–205.
37.
StakeR. E. (1995) The art of case study research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
SternbergR. J. (1985) Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SternbergR. J. (1988) The nature of creativity: Contemporary Psychological perspectives, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SternbergJ.LubartT. (1999) The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In: SternbergJ. (ed.) Handbook of creativity, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15.
41.
StrømsøH. I.BråtenI. (2002) Norwegian law students’ use of multiple sources while reading expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly37: 208–227.
42.
StrømsøH. I.BråtenI.SamuelstuenM. S. (2003) Students’ strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction21: 113–147.
van dijkT. A.KintschW. (1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension, New York, NY: Academic Press.
45.
WardT. B.SmithS. M.FinkeR. A. (1999) Creative cognition. In: SternbergR. J. (ed.) Handbook of creativity, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–212.
46.
WolfeM. B. W.GoldmanS. R. (2005) Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction23: 467–502.
