Read and navigate.gov.br – Ranielli Azevedo

I will share a research one of my students made in Brazil. I decided to pick this research because I wanted to rethink our work there based on the theories we are discussing here, and I also thought it would be interesting for you to have the chance know some of the research we do at POSLIN/UFMG.

       

      Azevedo, Ranielli Santos de (2013). Ler e navegar.gov.br: experiências de interação em um portal de transparência. Belo Horizonte, POSLIN, FALE/UFMG. (Dissertação de mestrado) (http://www.bibliotecadigital.ufmg.br/dspace/handle/1843/MGSS-9B3PEA)

Azevedo, Ranielli Santos de (2013). Read and navigate.gov.br: interactive experiences in a transparency portal. Belo Horizonte, POSLIN, FALE/UFMG. (MA dissertation)

·        Context:

The Brazilian government has a website called Portal da Transparência – Transparency Portal – that the citizens can use to know how the government is using public money. As it is a site for the public, and not for experts in economy, Azevedo raised the question of how people use the Portal and how easily they understand the information available.

·        Questions: 

·       How does the presentation of the content of the Transparency Portal of the Brazilian Federal Government influence the citizens’ reading and navigation experiences in this website?

o   Are there differences between reading and navigating?

o   How do the codes and visual elements displayed at the composition of the Transparency Portal influence reading and navigating?

o   How does literacy, including digital, interfere in the interaction of the readers/users of the Transparency Portal?

o   Does the vocabulary used at the Transparency Portal contribute for the success of the comprehension of the information by the citizen?

o   Is the usability of the Transparency Portal good?

·        Methods

Subjects:

o   A heterogeneous group of 10 people. Ages varying from 20 to 60 years old (eight from 20 to 34; one 52 and one 60)

o   Level of education: complete high school (3), incomplete major (3), and graduate (4)

o   Different professions

o   All of them use computers every day or almost every day.

Methodology:

Questionnaire – fill a form with personal information and computer use

Think aloud protocol – look for information at the Transparency Portal to answer to 14 questions (23 items). The protocols were registered in audio and video using Camtasia.

Interview – talk to the researcher about the experience of using the Transparency Portal

Navigating Skills:

Recognize the tools to make search and advanced search

Select adequate key-words

Evaluate if the information is relevant for the task

Recognize (graphic and linguistic) elements that indicate the presence of a link

Self-localization (know where you are in the different layers of a hypertext)

Infer the content of a link from its label (forward inferences)

Select relevant information for the reading purpose

Establish a connection between the link and the content 

This list of skills was built based mainly on:

DIAS, Marcelo Cafiero; NOVAIS, Ana Elisa. (2009). Por uma matriz de letramento digital. In: III Encontro Nacional sobre hipertexto. 2009. Belo Horizonte. Anais do III Encontro Nacional sobre hipertexto. Belo Horizonte: CEFET-MG, out. p. 1-19. Available at http://www.ufpe.br/nehte/hipertexto2009/anais/p-w/por-uma-matriz.pdf.

Levels of navigation

1.     Search highlighted information in the text

2.     Search information with one step and easy to find link

3.     Search information with 2 to 4 steps and easy to find link

4.     Search information with 2 to 4 steps including filling simple forms

5.     Search information with 2 to 4 steps including filling a search field to filter data

6.     Search information with 5 steps including filling a search field to filter data (long list of results)

7.     Search information with 2 steps connecting different parts of the same page

8.     Search information with 5 steps connecting different parts of the same page

9.     Search information with 2 steps, a difficult to find link, requiring ability to use the mouse.

Reading Skills:

Find explicit information on the text

Infer the meaning of a word or expression

Infer information

Make an interpretation of the text using/ with the help of graphic material

Establish connections between parts of a text

Evaluate the content of a text (judge the reliability and if you agree)

Make an interpretation of information presented in non-continuous texts (tables and graphics, for instance)

Infer the relationship between names and concepts of the text (connect the name and the concept)

·        Findings

• Results of the questionnaire as well as facial expressions, comments, signs of irritation show that reading and navigating in the Portal are demanding activities
• Results       

Itens	Percentage of correct answers
Navegation Items	70%
Reading Items	52%

• Based on these numbers, Azevedo could have said that the problem are the readers/users, who are not good readers or navigators. In fact, the lack of literacy, including digital literacy, intensified the level of difficulty of the interactions with the Portal. […] However, even among the subjects that demonstrated having more developed reading and navigating skills, she could clearly notice their difficulties to deal with the Portal many times.
• Previous knowledge interfere in the reading and navigation tasks.
• The most literate subjects used reading strategies that helped them to understand what, initially, seemed to be incomprehensible. But even so, they made many mistakes and in some cases, or gave up finding the answer to the question.
• The codes and visual elements displayed at the composition of the Transparency Portal influence reading and navigating and many times for worse (only 51% of the correct answers were found without difficulty).
• Besides problems caused by the difficulty to navigate at the Portal; reading and navigating skills and the lack of previous knowledge of the topics were responsible for the unsatisfactory results (navigating was better/easier than reading)
• Navigating difficulties:
• Infer the content of a link its label (forward inferences)
• Understand new visual codes as info-graphics and word cloud
• Reading difficulties:
• lack of previous knowledge on the topic
• to deal with technical vocabulary
• to understand non continuous texts (as graphics and word cloud)
• Some of the problems of the Transparency Portal:
• Some links are difficult to find
• To many steps to get to the information
• Some framing and colors problems
• Some tools require a very precise use of mouse or touch pad
• Higher levels of education led to better comprehension of the Portal, but did not lead to better navigation
•  It is difficult to separate reading from navigating. This frontier is even harder to establish when info-graphics are concerned. “In fact, we argue that navigation is more related to the act of finding information, to the strategies the reader/user develops to explore and keep track of his localization in the virtual space and in relation to the topic (which is a superficial layer of reading). However, what we call reading, in contrast to navigation, would be connecting the different layers of the information to build comprehension. It is when the reader over pass the contact zone and manage to understand the content, and is able to build connections from the information he had access to.” (Azevedo, 2013, p.101)

Vision Statement for Teaching and Learning Online Reading Comprehension

My Beliefs About Reading On The Internet – What counts as online reading comprehension?

I believe that reading today means to understand different written textual genres in different supports, environments and formats. When I say written I am not discarding other languages, but emphasizing the importance of the presence of the written verbal language to characterize the process as reading (stricto sensu), knowing that, inevitably, it will be surrounded by other semiotic resources. “All texts are multimodal. Language always takes place with other semiotic modes and is embedded in them” (free translation from Portuguese, Kress & van Leuween, 1998, p. 186)

Reading online involves reading texts in digital environments. This activity includes accessing and understanding the information, which includes many skills that can be condensed in the following categories (based on Coiro & Dobbler, 2007, Jenkins, 2009, Goldman et al., 2012, Kingsley & Tancock, 2013):

      Finding and accessing information

      Selecting the most appropriate ones for the task or reading aim

      Read and understand – built meaning from the text

      Make connection among the texts or fragment of texts read

      Built a coherent representation with the information found.

All those skills involve constant evaluation of the information, and monitoring of the reading process.

Coiro & Dobler (2007)  point out “the intricacies of rapidly integrating a physical process of clicking the mouse, dragging scroll bars, rolling over dynamic images, and navigating pop-up menus that intertwines with a cognitive process of planning, predicting, monitoring, and evaluating” (p.242), that make online reading so unique.

Reading on the internet involves social and individual skills, social and cognitive aspects. The context and the knowledge that “a reader brings to a text (even if the text is a grocery store) helps to shape the kind of meaning that is made and negotiated. Here, a reader's experiences, background knowledge, and sociocultural identity are as important (if not more so) as the decontextualized cognitive skills necessary to decipher a text." (Hammerberg, 2004 p. 651). Although I disagree that a grocery store is a text – I believe it is the context (van Dijk, 1977) –the social and pragmatic aspects of the communication act plays a fundamental role at understanding.

On the other hand, cognitive skills is also very important to allow the construction of meaning from written texts. According to Coiro e Dobler (2007, p. 217) reading online requires “new comprehension skills, strategies, and dispositions” and involve generating questions, locating, evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating information on the Internet.

In sum, reading involves making meaning from the written code as well as analyzing critically the texts social function.

My Emerging Beliefs About Teaching Reading on the Internet – How should online reading comprehension be taught? 

Two approaches of teaching online reading that go in different direction, but might get into a similar result are (1) the ones that first models to the students and them let the student do by themselves; and  (2) the ones in which the students are given (or create) a question or a problem to solve, and help is offered by the teacher during the process, or metacognitive analysis of the process is made at a latter point of the work or after it.

One example of the first king of approach is the Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT) Model (Leu et al., 2008). This approach starts with the teacher modeling and thinking aloud to show the students how they are supposed to behave as readers. Kingsley & Tancock (2013, p. 391) point out that reading research shows that “teacher modeling followed by collaborative inquiry tasks proved to be a successful instructional framework for Internet instruction (Castek, 2008;  Kingsley, 2011;  Leu & Reinking, 2010)”.

The other approach would be based on a constructionist or constructivist view of learning as Papert (1993) and Ferreiro and Teberosky (1979), respectively, propose for instance. In these perspectives, given a task the student needs to find ways to solve the problem by himself of with other students. The teacher’s role is help the students when they need.

I believe that there is not only way to teach online reading comprehension. Mixing different approaches will certainly be beneficial for the students, because they will be able to choose the ways that best fits them, among a range of options that the teacher showed them. So, blending teacher modeling and scaffolding what the students are expected to do, as well as working with a more constructionist approach of learning might bring good results.

Given all the possibilities that the Internet offers us, to teach reading on the internet should involve different practices, using different software and apps, authentic material and real situations. The vast amount of information we have available, enables a rich and productive use of the inquiry process as a learning tool. This is a way to help students learn to learn so that they will be able to do it in their personal and professional lives, adapting to the changes and challenges introduced by the modes of production and the technology, that are constantly changing.

“Internet inquiry involves curiosity, which leads students to search, scan, and ultimately seek to find an answer to their inquiring minds” (Kingsley & Tancock, 2013). An Internet based inquiry in a participatory culture (Jenkins, 2009), can count on a “Collaborative Problem-solving” situation, in which students will work together in teams to complete tasks and develop new knowledge (Jenkins, 2009, p. 3).

In this perspective the purpose of the teacher should be to make students became motivated, fluent, and critical readers of texts (print and digital). According to Guthrie, Wigfield, & You (2012),

classroom practices and conditions that support student motivation in the classroom context are most likely to impact students’ reading competence by virtue of their effects on students’ motivations, which are then expected to increase behavioral engagement in reading, which is the proximal variable that influences cognitive competence in reading. (p. 629)

Role of the teacher, when focusing on teaching online reading, should be to promote situations that will challenge the students to learn from this huge amount of texts available at digital environments.

Personal Reflection:

Sometimes I think that I might be over estimating the value of Internet and the necessity of helping our students to be better readers so that they can fully exercise their rights as citizens of our contemporary society. However, the more I read, the more I see that there are many other teachers/researchers concerned with this and all the complexities that read, write and learn online and offline involve. 

All those reading and discussions show me that reading online amplifies the necessity of some skills as well as make important skills that were seen as lower level skills. One example is locating information. To locate information online might get much more complex than locating in a single print text. Another one is selecting information. Now we have the Library of Babel (Borges, 1941) available almost anytime, anywhere.

Internet obliges us, as teachers, to focus on higher levels skills. It is not that we did not know about those skills before (Bloom’s taxonomy is from the 50’s; and PISA’s results with the expected levels of reading are available since 2000), but they were “higher” level skills that “some people” needed to develop, now they are essential skills that everyone needs to develop.

The readings, always exploring the “different sides of the coin”, reinforces my beliefs that there is not one truth and the miraculous approach. We need to know many approaches and perspectives to have many tools available to use, and to have many lenses with which to analyze the phenomena and situations.

As far as my teaching style, I tend to be very constructionist/constructivist, in the sense that I normally give the students problems to solve, projects to develop, and I help then during the process. I must pay more attention to the moments when I can scaffold more. As I teach undergraduate and graduate students that are or will become teachers, this will work also as a way to show them how to help their own students or future students.

References

Coiro, J., Dobler, E. (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. 

Coiro, J. (2003). Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458-464.

Ferreiro, E., Teberosky, A. Los sistemas de escritura en el desarrollo del niño. México, Siglo XXI, 1979.

Goldman, S., Braasch, J., Wiley, J., Grassaer, A., Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601 634). Springer US Chicago.

Hammerberg, D. D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for socioculturally diverse classrooms: A review of what we know. Reading Teacher, 57(7), 648-661.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The MIT Press.

Kingsley, T., Tancock, S. (2013). Internet Inquiry. The Reading Teacher.

Kress, G.; Van Leeuwen, T. (1998). Front Pages: (The critical) analysis of newspaper layout. In: Bell, A., Garret, Peter. (Eds.) Approaches to media discourse. Blackwell Publishing. p. 186-219.

Papert, Seymour. The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, 1993.

van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. Longman.

# 2 Reflections

DEFINING ONLINE READING COMPREHENSION 

·        How do the researchers across your three readings define online reading comprehension (or reading on the Internet)? Are there similarities and differences in their definitions?

·        How does each researcher capture what they believe to be the key features of reading on the Internet? (e.g., What tasks/measures are used?)

·        How do these definitions build on previous ideas or frameworks of offline reading comprehension that you read about earlier this semester?

·        Has much changed in the past seven years (Coiro 2007 > Kingsley & Tancock, 2014) in terms of how online reading has been defined among these researchers?

·        What theories inform the work of each researcher? Are these theories more aligned with cognitive, socio-cultural, or other perspectives of reading and literacy?

·        Do you agree with how each group of researchers define and measure online reading comprehension? Have they left anything out of their definition(s)/measure(s) that you consider important? If so, what, and why do you think your ideas are important elements of online reading comprehension?

Since Coiro & Dobler (2007), Goldman et al (2012) and Kingsley & Tancock (2013) adopt a cognitive approach emphasizing reading skills and strategies, it does not come as a surprise that they all have a similar concept of reading that view it as “an active, constructive, meaning-making process” (Coiro & Dobler, 2007, p. 217). In order to make meaning, readers need to use “strategic cognitive processes to select, organize, connect, and evaluate what they read.”  (Coiro & Dobler, 2007, p. 217) Reading online requires, besides traditional skills and strategies, new comprehension skills, strategies, and dispositions “to generate questions, and to locate, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate information on the Internet (Leu et al., 2004).” (Coiro & Dobler, 2007, p. 217). Online reading involves “using effective strategies to narrowing focus, locating information, evaluating the information for accuracy, and synthesizing it into a product that the reader can use to effectively share this information with others” (Kingsley & Tancock, 2013, p. 389).

They also agree that online reading means, inevitably, dealing with multiple texts. They claim that online reading, as emphasized by Goldman et al (2012), that it requires the construction of an integrated model, that bring together the meanings of the single texts, the connections among them and reasoning about the author, the purpose of the text, and evaluation of reliability, and its relevance to the readers’ tasks.

Online reading is seen as an inquiry task in which it is important to have a question, to know how to look for information in multiple texts, to monitor comprehension and navigation, to evaluate the sources of information and to integrate relevant information for the task.

Because reading online requires dealing with multiple and multimodal texts, in a rich, diverse and dynamic environment, these authors claim that it is more complex than print reading (pegar uma frase da coiro).

According to Goldman et al (2012), “coordinating among these many processes of navigation, selection, evaluation, connection, and monitoring increases the need for self-regulation skills” (p. 356)

Coiro & Dobler (2007) develop a research informed by three different, but complementary, theoretical perspectives. One is a cognitive view of reading that views reading as an active meaning-making process, involving the use of a set of skills and strategies. The other one is the perspective of new literacies according to which “traditional reading skills are necessary, but not sufficient, to read and learn from information on the Internet.” (Coiro & Dobler, 2007, p. 217). The third one is the theory of cognitive flexibility (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). “According to this perspective, open-networked information spaces such as the Internet require readers to draw from and integrate multiple knowledge structures while adapting to the rapid changes from one reading situation to the next (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 2004).” (Coiro & Dobler, 2007, p. 218)

They studied the online reading comprehension strategies of skilled sixth-graders, and using think aloud-protocol to collect the data. They focused on three aspects of comprehension that are considered important from a new literacies perspective: locate, evaluate, and synthesize information.

Goldman et al (2012), by their turn, focused on the “readers need to deal with multiple sources of information, evaluate and select information that will be integrated in his mental model about the topic”.

They used the think aloud protocol methodology to understand the processing that undergraduate students engaged in a web-based inquiry task about volcanoes using multiple Internet sources. Better learners were contrasted with poorer learners. The results of this study “indicate that better learners engaged in more sense-making, self-explanation, and comprehension-monitoring processes on reliable sites as compared with unreliable sites." Besides that, “better learners also engaged in more goal-directed navigation than poorer learners” (Goldman et al, 2012, p. 356),

This work is informed by theories of comprehension and learning from multiple texts (e.g., Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999) that articulate how models of single-text comprehension (e.g., Kintsch, 1988, 1998) need to be expanded to capture the processing of multiple texts.

This is an inherently intertextual process in which multiple sources of information are juxtaposed with one another, portions are evaluated and selected, and information is integrated as part of a process of updating the expert’s mental model about the topic (Goldman, 2004; Hartman, 1995; Rouet, Favart, Britt, & Perfetti, 1997). (Goldman et al, 2012, p. 356)

Kingsley, T., & Tancock, S. (2013) tells the teachers what they could do to help students become better online readers. They “describe four important competencies needed for Internet inquiry, what they look like in the classroom, and what scaffolds are needed to guide students to use them independently” (p. 389): (1) generate high-quality inquiry topics, (2) effectively and efficiently search for information, (3) critically evaluate Internet resources, and (4) connect ideas across Internet texts.

This text has as theoretical support the new literacy studies, that include “the many facets of reading and writing required when interacting with digital texts (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2 008;  Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2 013)”. Quoting Coiro & Castek (2011) they believe that online reading is primarily task based, as readers typically use the Internet to ask a question or solve a problem.

Another set of ideas that inform this work are the Commom Core State Standars, and the fact that they give emphasis on higher-level thinking and acquisition of digital literacy skills as reanding digital texts, evaluating sources, and developing a product.

CHALLENGES OF ONLINE READING COMPREHENSION 

·        What do these researchers suggest makes online reading comprehension so difficult? Do you agree/disagree?

·        What makes an online reader strategic?

·        How do more strategic online readers differ from less strategic online readers?

·        What does development have to do with strategic reading and online comprehension?

·        What instructional strategies do these researchers recommend with respect to how to teach online reading comprehension to learners of various ages?

Dificult (online reading)

These studies consider online reading comprehension more difficult than reading print texts because it requires:

higher level Internet inquiry skills as:

- generating high-quality inquiry topics,

- effectively and efficiently searching for information,

- critically evaluating Internet resources

- making integration from multiple sources / connecting ideas across Internet texts.

Facing a great amount or results in a search can be overwhelming for the students and discourage them from using a variety of sources in their inquiry (Kingsley & Tancock, 2013, p. 393).

Readers have to establish relationships among different parts of the text that are not signaled in the text, so readers must infer and construct them (Goldman et al, 2012, p. 356)

Students are not very critical in relation to the information they find. They “typically believe anything published on the Internet must be considered valid and reliable (Kingsley, & Tancock, 2013, p. 395).

Strategic reader

According to Coiro & Dobler (2007), skilled readers employ a range of integrative processes to aid their comprehension of text. These processes have as key elements, four kinds of prior knowledge - prior knowledge of the topic, prior knowledge of printed informational text structures, prior knowledge of informational website structures, and prior knowledge of Web-based search engines -; inferential reasoning; self-regulation; and affective variables related to efficacy and motivation. Skilled readers are motivated, have the four kinds of prior knowledge and know how to use them, make inferences (in special forward – predictive - inferences), and monitor well the searching as well as the comprehension process.

Skilled readers plan, predict, monitor and evaluate. They are actively engaged in building comprehension and accomplishing the task as they search for information.

Goldman et al (2012), concludes that the more strategic approach of some readers “was largely based on awareness of their task, their current understanding, and assessment of what they still needed to accomplish the task” (p. 376).

# strategic and less strategic reader

The study made by Goldman et al (2012), explicitly compares strategic and less strategic learners. The results show that the better learners were more likely to go to pages on reliable sites and to return to them than poorer learners were. The better learners also more sharply distinguished between reliable sites that were worth investing meaning-making processes

Better learners showed a larger differential preference to employ self-explanation and monitoring on reliable sites. Better learners’ reasons for leaving pages reflected greater planfulness and goal-directedness than those of the poorer learners, especially on reliable sites. Finally, the information/ source evaluation comments suggest a greater tendency among the better learners to take note of information quality and credibility than the poorer learners did, while relevance seemed the primary driver of the information/source evaluations of the poorer learners (Goldman et al, 2012, p. 370).

Better learners were more strategic than the poorer learners in both how and what they read. Better learners used more monitoring and evaluation processes to determine not only what they understood from the information provided but also whether it was scientifically credible or task relevant. Although decisions to visit sites were made on a similar basis—using keywords to infer the presence of information likely to be task relevant—the patterns of processing events indicated more evaluation on the part of the better learners regarding how the information that they were looking at did or did not further their understanding of volcanoes in general and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens specifically. Decisions to continue on or seek information on other sites followed from these evaluations. (Goldman et al, 2012, p. 375).

How to teach

All those authors believe that students need instruction to develop better strategies to deal with information online, and that specific instruction help students to make better online research and improve comprehension.

According to Kingsley & Tancock (2013, p. 391) reading research shows that “teacher modeling followed by collaborative inquiry tasks proved to be a successful instructional framework for Internet instruction” (Castek, 2008;  Kingsley, 2011;  Leu & Reinking, 2010). So, they recommend the use of  Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT) Model (Leu et al., 2008), that can be summarized in three main steps:

• Teacher-led instruction— the teacher explicitly models the actions
• Guided collaborative practice — The students work collaboratively to solve common tasks
• Inquiry — students work to apply new knowledge of skill(s)

CONNECTIONS/IMPLICATIONS/QUESTIONS/CRITIQUES

·        What connections do you see between these ideas and things happening in your teaching/learning context? Teaching practices? Student behaviors? Classroom climates?

·        What implications do these ideas have for your work in education?

·        What questions do you have? (e.g., clarifying terms, broader applications, extended wonderings, critiques)

·        Do these ideas spark any interests for your final project?

• These ideas help me understand the necessity to teach more explicitly the strategies that skilled readers use, so that students that did not develop that skill can develop or students that did not use that strategy yet might get the benefits of using it.
• When we see reading as a cognitive process, we understand that anything is simple when reading is concerned. Learning to read is difficult, and reading is not a trivial process. Reading online might be more complex because it inevitably deals with multiple sources of information of different kinds, in a more dynamic environment, requires good searching skills, and making connections that are not explicitly signed in the text, among other skills. New environments, genres, supports, require different gestures, approaches, and bring different purposes. I think it is important to notice that online reading highlights complexities that the school system did not focused much before, such as multiple source reading, multimodal texts or different modalities and supports of texts. Even locate information, that is a basic skill, Pisa (2009) results shows that students can find information in one part of the text, but they are not good at locating information that is spread out in different parts of the same document.
• Research in Brazil usually do not separate students as poor or better learners as Goldman at al did. This discomfort provoked by those labels is explained by a social approach, which believes the problem might be the system, or the measures, and not the students’ intelligence. As Hammerberg, (2004) points out “severely labeled children are a function of an educational system that demands we identify specific cognitive traits on a continuum from low need to high need” (p 654).
• I like the idea of modeling (Kingsley & Tancock, 2013), but I think we need to be careful not to make the student depending of a model or believing that that is the only way to think or read, or that different approaches to texts are wrong.

References:

Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (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.

Goldman, S., Braasch, J., Wiley, J., Grassaer, A., Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356-381.

Hammerberg, D. D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for socioculturally diverse classrooms: A review of what we know. Reading Teacher, 57(7), 648-661.

Kingsley, T., & Tancock, S. (2013). Internet Inquiry. The Reading Teacher.