Monroe Summer Learning Academy-PD-June 12, 2013


Published on

An interactive professional development presentation for summer learning academy teachers that focuses on online inquiry and synthesis processes, plus effective instructional methods that support the development of these skills.

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Former middle- and high-school teacherTaught in public and private schools for 9 years. Here I am in 1998 with my grade 10 English students – I taught many of them French as well. They friend me on Facebook now and I can’t believe they’re all so grown up with kids of their own. Which suggests I must be old….yikes.
  • In 1999-2000 kids at this same school participated in my first research study that focused on the impact of computers’ on grade 9 French students’ attitudes, motivation, self-concepts and performance on several measures of French language. I found no difference between the two groups of kids – one treatment and one control group that I studied. At the time, this shocked me and I worried I had done something wrong in my research. The only significant variable that I found was in the students’ perceptions of my competency as a teacher. The computer kids thought I was better than the control kids. Maybe I was – but it lead me to think about what really matters in classrooms – and we know, of course, that the teacher IS the most important variable in the classroom.
  • From 2002-2005 I taught at a school for girls in Toronto that had a one-to-one laptop program. By the time I got there, it had already been operational for five years. It was among the first of its kind in Canada and given my research interests, I found the teaching environment there to be so compelling. They now call their one-to-one laptop program a legacy program…they’ve dispensed with it in favour of a bring your own device program. But it was these experiences working every day in an environment of ubiquitous computing that really helped me to consider the impact of technologies on teaching and on student learning. Just as a for instance, the wifi was only reliably established in 2004 – so even things like the hazards of tripping on a cord changed the way I moved, thought, and operated in my classroom. Beyond that, of course, I was constantly considering the affordances of the Internet for authentic engagement. At this school we were expected to design inquiry-based projects for students – and especially in the middle-school – so I really started to develop questions about the online reading processes in which I saw my students engaging.
  • In 2008, I started a PhD at Michigan State University in Educational Psychology and Educational Technology with the intention of studying the interactions of adolescent cognitive development, technologies and literacies. Currently, I’m in the process of analyzing the data from a study that I conducted here in Michigan with 25 students who read online, on five topics directly connected to the Michigan science curriculum. The prompts – which were NOT of their own creation because I wanted to ensure the kids were all reading on the same issues over the course of the study – the prompts were always pro/con in nature. And, through their online inquiry process, they needed to synthesize what they understood in order to then write a persuasive argument addressed to a certain audience or stakeholder. These were ninth graders. They read, with partners, for 30 minutes and then wrote for 20 minutes – about the same amount of time as a regular high-school class period.Over the course of these five online reading experiences, students received one of two “interventions” – a screencast that provided a strategic think aloud as I read across multiple texts and synthesized my understanding OR a control screencast that provided access to the same websites as “starter texts” but no think aloud modelling. Treatment students also got guided support from me as they engaged in their reading process. Control students did not. Here’s a quick clip of two students trying to figure out what nuclear fission is used for. They’re supposed to be constructing an argument for the leader of a country considering nuclear power about whether or not to use nuclear power plants to generate electricity.I’ll share what I’m learning from this study with you both this morning and this afternoon. Suffice it to say that the journey that has lead me to be here with you today has been long but so filled with wonder. It has, in itself, been an inquiry project of my own creation – which is why I’m so excited to share, with you, what I’ve learned and what I’m still learning as you come together to think critically about your plans for supporting student learning in your incredible summer academy here in Monroe.
  • These are all questions that good online readers, inquirers, and synthesizers ask themselves as they locate, evaluate and then construct an integrated understanding of what they’re reading.Take a minute, right now – just a minute.Draw or summarize in a Google Doc what you currently understanding about your question – Be sure to represent the connections that you’ve distilled among the ideas you found at different sources. Updating your understanding now will enable you to dive back in to your inquiry process in a little while.
  • We’re going to spend the next twenty minutes exploring what research tells us about how children construct an understanding from what they read on the Internet so that as you work with students through the summer and through the next school year and beyond, the decisions you make can be informed by evidence. After that, we’re going to spend time thinking about and practicing how to teach effective online reading, inquiry and synthesis skills to your students. But right now, I want to share with you what we understand about online reading comprehension as inquiry –with a particular focus on what good online readers do, and what weaker online readers do. I’ll also share what is currently understood about the development of these skills. But even before we do this – I’d like to just stop for a minute to consider – to truly consider why children need to learn to use the Internet to solve problems through a process of inquiry and why they need you to help them become digitally literate. As we come together this morning to talk about how we can teach children how to engage in a process of inquiry and synthesize information that they read on the Internet, we do so at a very unique moment in time. Estimates from Internet World Stats (2012) indicate that as of last June, over 2.4 billion people use the Internet – and it’s probably even more now. This estimate suggests that about 1/3 of the world’s population currently use the Internet and based on these growth numbers, there is huge opportunity for continued expansion…and even here in North America, where cellular and high-speed Internet access becomes more affordable, we will soon reach a time when nearly everyone has access to the Internet at school, at home, and of course, everywhere else via mobile devices. As many scholars have already claimed, the Internet is the information medium of our time. suggest that over 2.4 billion people -- about 1/3 of the world’s population -- are using the Internet. According to Whois Source -- an organization that tracks the number of domain names created and deleted from the Internet every day, there are over 144 million domain names on the Internet -- and about 145 000 new domain names are created daily. With a computer, or the mobile devices that we keep in our pockets, we have more access to information than anyone ever has -- what’s more -- 145 000 new pages of online content are being created every day -- so tomorrow, I will have access to even more information than I do today.
As many scholars have rightly claimed, the Internet IS the predominant information source of this generation. We have immediate and ubiquitous access to more perspectives, more ideas, more thoughts than anyone ever has in the history of humanity. And it’s overwhelming. For children, just learning to read and understand what they’ve decoded – the Internet presents However, in the face of such overwhelming amounts of information, the human response -- as James Paul Gee has pointed out in his recent book, the Anti-Education Era: Creating Smarter Students Through Digital Learning -- is to put ourselves into information bubbles that give us only the perspectives that confirm our own because, we humans like to feel like we’re in control. And, we humans like to feel that we’re right -- it’s comfy, and a whole lot less overwhelming when our information diet helps us to feel safe, secure, and surrounded by friends, who are as smart as we are, and who confirm our views as utterly and totally right -- right?!However, as Eli Pariser has warned us in his book, and his now famous TED talk, the Internet itself is complicit in this kind of information “personalization” because it uses logarithms to show us search results tailored in response to our search history. Social networks give us links from friends who share only our own views -- and even if you have friends in your network with opposing views, you don’t usually see what they’re reading. Do you see a problem with this? [insert slide that provides a visual of the information bubble?]If we don’t know how to actively seek out a range of perspectives, to evaluate them for trustworthiness and then synthesize what we have read into an overall understanding of the issue, then as citizens of the 21st century, -- as Jean-Francois Rouet asks (sort of rhetorically)-- are we functionally literate?
  • Have you ever wondered how much information is actually ON the Internet? Look at these numbers.This chart shows us how many domain names exist on the Internet. For every domain name, of course, there are usually many associated pages – so over 145 million domain names – nearly 169 thousand NEW domain names created in a day, 117 thousand deleted that’s a net gain of 50, 993 (according to my calculator). So, there’s a daily increase of over 50 thousand websites. Just thinking about these numbers provides a little perspective on the staggering amount of information to which we all have access – at school, at home, on the bus, and in the supermarket line via mobile service. Two year olds using iPads have immediate access to more information than the most learned scholar just 60 years ago could have dreamed of having. But of course, we know that two year olds…and even twenty-two year olds aren’t very good at making the most of that access. Oh – and on the point of access, I found some data to help us estimate Internet access in the homes of our students…
  • We know that 8-18 year-olds spend, on average, 1:29 hours of time on computers outside of school – and that much of that time is spent on Facebook and on Youtube; and most of that time is spent multi-tasking.Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA. Retrieved from, although students as young as 8 – which is to say 3rd graders – are already spending a LOT of time outside of school online, the nature of their activities is NOT, for the most part, preparing them to USE the information to which they have ubiquitous access in any sort of critical, analytical way. In Ito’s study of the digital practices of you, 84% said they used a search engine to find information or to mess around online as a way of exploring the affordances of the Internet as a technology, it is also true that students are generally un-critical of the sources they select. In my own research, even good offline readers who used some pretty sophisticated strategies for constructing meaning from the texts they were reading online picked the first search result in Google without even questioning why, or whether that source of information would serve their purpose.
  • So, this is it. Kids have access. Affluent kids more than less affluent kids. White kids probably more than African American and Hispanic kids. And, when they use the Internet at home, or at a friend’s house they MOSTLY engage in social, friendship building practices. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 2008, 98% of elementary schools and 99% of secondary schools in the US had Internet access – so even if kids aren’t able to get online at home, they can at school. But here’s the thing -- there is emerging agreement that what most kids are and have been doing online – is NOT preparing them to become functionally literate in a digital age. Here’s a quote by one my own academic heros, Jean-Francois Rouet.
  • And another one from some of the best researchers in this field in the world today. [Pause]Children and adolescents – even in college --for all of their access and experiences online do NOT apply sophisticated, strategic online reading, inquiry OR synthesis skills. Which is why I’m so excited that here in Monroe you have the vision to START building online reading and inquiry skills EARLY!!
  • Okay – how are we doing?We’ve covered a lot of ground already – let’s take a minute to turn and talk. Turn and talk to your partner about what you’ve come to understand so far this morning.And, if you have questions about anything I’ve talked about we’ll take another minute to address those questions.
  • So, now that we’ve got a context for understanding why the work you will be doing with your students this summer is SOOOO critical, let’s turn our attentions to the practicalities. What do kids need to learn to do and how can we teach it to them?
  • In terms of the WHAT, the theory of New Literacies tells us that kids need to learn to Question, locate, evaluate, synthesize and communicate what they’ve learned using digital tools.And, it’s NO coincidence that these skills also align with the inquiry cycle that you’re using to ground your summer learning academy. Questioning – well, that’s what happens during your immersion time. You spent the first hour thinking about your questions, trying to figure out what you really needed to know, wanted to know and how you were going to find out.Locating and Evaluating – these are generally considered the “research” parts of the inquiry framework.Synthesize – well, that’s Colalesce.And, communicate – well, that’s Go Public.
  • In fact, Julie Coiro and Bernadette Dwyer have both recognized the importance of defining online reading AS a process of online inquiry and problem solving. So – to be clear, when I say online reading or new literacies or even digital litearcies – I think of these ideas as INQUIRY processes. Because, let’s face it – in school and out of school one of the most important ways that we use the Internet is to find information and generate NEW understanding based on what we read. It’s inquiry – yes, we use the Internet for facebook, watching videos on youtube, downloading music – but when you need health information, want to take a trip to the Netherlands – or if you’re a kid and you want to persuade your parents to buy you a puppy – you proably need to use multiple sources of information to construct an argument, or at least to help you make an informed decision.
  • And, I would add, that they need to communicate what they’ve understood using a range of genres – both online and offline. PLUS – as my colleague Kara Sevensma reported in her study of 6 average and at-risk readers in the 9th grade – a great deal of synthesis happens as students construct their messages for audiences.
  • Okay – so based on all of this, imagine you’re trying, as I was a year ago, to write a dissertation proposal. I realized that a lot of work had been done to describe what students DO and DON”T DO. I realized that a lot of work had focused on locating and evaluating. And I realized that that nobody had, as of yet, tried to design an intervention that helped students to construct an integrated understanding from multiple, multi-modal Internet texts. So, I decided to give it a go. The work that I’ll show you now is my own definition of the WHAT – and it’s still developing! However, I obviously believe – based on the best evidence that we currently have -- that helping kids to develop an awareness of these strategies and the ability to apply them flexibly and recursively as they construct an understanding from multiple Internet texts will, over time, support their online inquiry skill development. Let’s talk about what this all means. First of all, I want to say that evidence suggests students gain a great deal from collaborative online inquiry (Coiro et al., 2012; Kiili, 2012) Novice readers benefit from opportunities to make their thinking transparent, to negotiate search terms, to plan the best course of action with a partner.For this reason, students in my study read with a partner. I should also say that this formula, as presented looks linear...but that it’s actually not meant to be used in an especially linear fashion, at least that’s not how advanced online readers and synthesizers would use it – and it’s not what the students in my study did. Although there is an inherent logic to the order of the strategies that is grounded in the process itself and in evidence from other studies of both offline and online reading – students generally don’t start at the top and work their way through the strategies without going back or skipping ahead. Instead, the best online inquirers flexibly apply these strategies as needed – based on in-the-moment decisions, inferences and monitoring of understanding.I’ll show you more about this in a minute.Let’s look, though at the strategies. **Talk about each strategy**
  • Talk about each of these as well --
  • This is a diagram that I developed to help my committee understand how I was defining online synthesis – but I share it here to demonstrate to you how theory suggests this process works…and how, in truth, I have also observed students engaging in online inquiry. These concentric circles represent the top of the hour-glass figure – imagine you’re looking down from the top toward that dot which – as you can see at left, is the moment the student picks a text. It’s the moment of “click”. A whole host of strategies lead to picking a source – but as you know from my formula, I think that a focus on purpose, an awareness of bakcground knowledge will help to build search terms – and will also help to determine which search results are (a) relevant but also (b) trustworthy. Already – in evaluating trustworthiness, kids will compare what they read with their background knowledge. See what I mean? Already it gets recursive.In your own inquiry model – coalesce is seen as something that happens AFTER research – but what I’m showing you here is that coalescence happens AS kids are reading – or at least, in my view, it should. You can’t synthesize without questioning and locating texts but as students begin to construct an integrated understanding from what they read, question, locate and evaluate feed back IN to the synthesis process. Students should, in my view, be continually updating their understanding, continually engaged in a strategic process of monitoring – asking themselves okay, what do I currently understand, what do I need to do again? Oh ya – so based on what I know now, I have the following three questions – and I think I’ll use this search engine to investigate the first question.
  • Let’s listen to a couple of students reading – it’s just shy of two minutes in length -- you’ll hear them engage in the strategic recursive process of synthesis that I’ve described. As you listen, try to identify what they’re doing. Can you identify any of the strategies?
  • Let’s finish this morning’s session with another metacognitive minute about the WHAT. If you’re just getting going with notetaking in Google Docs – then I highly recommend recording your thoughts in the collaborative google document that I created for our session. If, however, you’re not completely overwhelmed and you’d like to try something different – record your thoughts on the Padlet wall I’ve created.
  • Monroe Summer Learning Academy-PD-June 12, 2013

    1. 1. RESEARCH & COALESCE: TEACHINGSTUDENTS TO BUILD UNDERSTANDINGTHROUGH ONLINE INQUIRYProfessional Development with Monroe Summer Academy TeamJune 12, 2013Michelle Schira HagermanEducational Psychology and Educational Technology
    2. 2. All of today’s resources can be found at…• PowerPoint• Slideshare• I also encourage you to take notes collaboratively in thisGoogle Doc that I created for today’s session •
    3. 3. A little about me…
    4. 4. Early questions…
    5. 5. Teaching in a one-to-one school…Photo:
    6. 6. Dissertation research…
    7. 7. Goals for our time togetherBy the end of these two hours you will…• Know why teaching students to inquire online is so important• Know what researchers have concluded about what studentsdo and do not do as they engage in online inquiry projects• Have a deeper understanding of online inquiry and synthesisprocesses• Know WHAT to teach students so that they become moresophisticated online inquirers and synthesizers• Know HOW to teach students to become better online inquirersand synthesizers• Have engaged in your own inquiry process and practicedmodeling online inquiry by thinking aloud
    8. 8. Let’s inquire…• Grounded experiences support learning…so, let’s startthinking about the inquiry process by doing some inquiry.You need…• A partner.• A device that is connected to the Internet.
    9. 9. Your Task• With your partner…• In 10 minutes• Locate, read, and constructan integrated understandingfrom multiple, trustworthy,multi-modal Internet texts…• On YOUR Question aboutInquiry?Photo: In the glow of the surf by tm22 Licensed for sharealike under Creative Commons
    10. 10. What did you learn?• Did you answer your question?• How strategic were you in your approach? What planning didyou do before reading?• What sources did you use? Why did you pick them?• Did you actively look for information that backed up orcontradicted what you knew or had read?• Did you make inter-textual, intra-textual and/or extra-textualconnections?• What role did your background knowledge play?• How did you decide where to go next?
    11. 11. Why is it important for students to learnonline inquiry and synthesis skills?Retrieved June 10, 2012 from
    12. 12. Why is it important for students to learn onlineinquiry and synthesis skills?Summary of Total Domain Names on the Internet, Number of Domains Created,Deleted and Transferred[Retrieved June 10, 2013 from
    13. 13. Broadband Internet Access in US HomesPew Broadband (2012, December)• 65% of adults have high-speed at home• 70% of white adults• 53% of African American adults• 49% of Hispanic adults• 74% of adults, aged 30-49• 75% of adults, aged 18-29• 73% of adults with some college• 56% of adults who graduated high school• 89% of households with $75,000+ income• 46% of households with <$30,000 incomeBrenner, J. & Rainie, L. (2012). Americanbroadband use. Retrieved from
    14. 14. Why is it important for students to learnonline inquiry and synthesis skills?• 8-18 year olds: 1:29 hrs/day on computers (out of school)(Rideout, Foehr & Roberts, 2010)• Online, youth engage in friendship-oriented practices; peersinfluence learning; rules of culture are mediated by thetechnologies (Ito et al., 2008)• Some youth DO engage in interest-driven learning online – butthis practice is less common among youth, relative tofriendship-driven practices online. (Ito et al., 2008)• The Internet CAN enable self-directed “geeking out” (Ito et al., 2008)but in school, access to specialized knowledge communities isoften limited; activities rarely driven by authentic interests.
    15. 15. Children and adolescents do not seem tolearn online reading skills without help!• All 25 7th grade participants were duped by this website, even afterbeing told NOT to believe everything on the Internet.(Leu, 2007)• Children and adolescents often click before thinking (Henry, 2006;2007)• At-risk readers are more likely than average-achieving peers to follow“ineffective traversals” (Sevensma, 2013)• Students often skim a single online text that they think is relevant.They search for a single answer. Without prompting they rarelyexplore multiple texts, seek out multiple perspectives to inform theirunderstanding (Wallace, 2000)• Planning, predicting, monitoring, evaluating and inhibiting are criticalskills for effective online reading(Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Dwyer, 2010;Hagerman, 2011; Sevensma, 2013)
    16. 16. Functional literacy in a digital age?Both document integration and informationsearch require the mastery and use ofmemory control mechanisms, that isthinking about the problem statement orquestion, looking at source parameters thatcome with a document, corroboratinginformation sources, or quickly inhibitingirrelevant information.These skills are certainly notfluently used by students insecondary education.They are, nonetheless compulsoryelements of functional literacy, especiallyin a world that relies more and more stronglyon sophisticated, digital information systems.(2006, p. 189)Jean-Francois Rouet
    17. 17. Unsophisticated ApproachesThe emerging research baseon navigating and selectingamong multiple sources hassuggested that high schoolstudents and collegefreshmen use relativelyunsophisticatedapproaches.They generally prioritizecontent overlap between thetask topic and the informationsource, with limited attentiondevoted to evaluating thereliability or credibility of theinformation (2012, p. 358).Susan R.Goldman Jennifer WileyJason Braasch
    18. 18. Metacognitive Minute
    19. 19. What?• What strategies?• What does the processlook like?How?• Instructional strategiesthat work• Models• Practice
    20. 20. Online Reading Comprehension• Theory of New Literacies (Leu, 2000; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004)• The new literacies of the Internet require five skills,applied strategically and flexibly:• Questioning• Locating• Evaluating• Synthesizing• CommunicatingImmersionResearchCoalesceGo Public
    21. 21. Online Reading as InquiryOnline Reading = Online problem-solving process = Online Inquiry(Coiro, 2011; Dwyer, 2010)• PURPOSE frames the process (Zhang & Duke, 2008)• Students must constantly monitor how their reading activityaligns with their reading purpose. Otherwise, they get distracted.• Executive function/Self-regulatory processes correlate withonline reading comprehension ability (Coiro, 2011; Hagerman, 2011)• In addition to locating texts and evaluating their relevance,students must also learn to generate new understanding!
    22. 22. Regarding Inquiry and Synthesis• Reading online for the purpose ofsolving problems requires learnersto:• move beyond summarizing information toanalyze and evaluate multiple texts;• negotiate disparate messages;• generate meaningful connections beyondthose typically seen by others;• communicate these new ideas clearly andrespectfully with those who are differentfrom them. (Coiro, 2011) Julie Coiro
    23. 23. [(PST)2 + iC3 ] (Hagerman,2013)P = Purpose 
What do we have to learn about? What do we have to create with thisinformation?P = Pre-existing KnowledgeWhat do we already know about this topic?S = Search TermsWhat search terms should we use?S = Source SelectionWhich of these looks promising, and why?T = Type of SourceIs this a blog? A Wiki? A news article? A government website? By skimming andpreviewing, what can you guess about what youll find at the site BEFORE you click?T = TrustworthyHow trustworthy is this website?Pre-ReadingLocate&Evaluate
    24. 24. [(PST)2 + iC3 ] (Hagerman,2013)i = Identify Important Information 
What information can we useto meet our reading purpose?C = Compare 
How does this compare with what we already knew?C = Connect 
How does this information connect with information that wehave read from other texts that weve read today?C = Continually Update 
What do we know now and what do we stillneed to understand to achieve our purpose?IntegrateandUpdate
    25. 25. [(PST)2+iC3]
    26. 26. What strategies do you see or hear?
    27. 27. Minute #2
    28. 28. Our Second Hour…• How?• Recommendations from Julie Coiro & Elizabeth Dobler• LINK• Example of a screencast think aloud• You Try • Q & A
    29. 29. How would YOU teach these strategies toyour students?Think|Pair|Share
    30. 30. Coiro (2013)PLANNING1. Observe Students During the Inquiry Process2. Ask Students About Their Processes for Online Inquiry3. Situate online inquiry and digital tool use in real-worldexperiences.4. Empower students to ask their own questions based ontheir own wonderings
    31. 31. Coiro (2013)TEACHING5. Begin by Teaching the Search Process, Then Move IntoCritical Thinking6. Model Online Inquiry Explicitly, Through a GradualRelease of Responsibility7. Start Small With Online Inquiry Projects and BuildSuccessively8. Adapt and Be Flexible (multiple and changing formats,multiple perspectives)9. Collaborate with Colleagues to Develop Online InquiryCurriculum10. Emphasize Critical Evaluation
    32. 32. LINK (Hagerman, 2013)• List: Your purpose, background knowledge and search terms• Initiate: Enter your search terms, and initiate your review ofpotential texts to read closely.• Never Stop Questioning: The text, the author, the relevance, thetrustworthiness. What kind of text is this? What can we predictfrom the URL, the title, the snippet text and the preview pane? Isthis source of information trustworthy? Who wrote it? Why? Howdo we know? Is this information useful? How do we know? Whatdid that mean? What should we do next?• Keep Comparing, Connecting and Updating Understanding:How does this information compare with what you already know?How does it connect to other information you’ve read? What do weknow now? What do we still need to know?
    33. 33. Think Aloud Example• Script• Screencast
    34. 34. Now, you try…• Spend 10 more minutes reading to synthesize what youunderstand about inquiry.• Practice LINKing (aka, [(PST)2 + iC3)• THEN – record a three to five minute think aloud thatcaptures some part of your inquiry process.• Use Jing or Screncast-o-matic• Be explicit about the strategies you’re using – but don’trestrict your strategies artificially. Kids need examples ofcomplexity – remember it’s NOT a linear process 
    35. 35. How do we evaluate synthesis?• Rubric for evaluating evidence of synthesis in persuasive essays
    36. 36. you!
    37. 37. ReferencesCoiro, J. (in press). Purposeful, Critical, and Flexible: Vital Dimensions of Online Reading and Learning. InR.J. Spiro, M. Deschryver, M.S. Hagerman, P. Morsink & P. Thompson (Eds.) Reading at a crossroads?Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices. New York: RoutledgeCoiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online readingcomprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 107–115. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.558435Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the Online Reading Comprehension Strategies Used by Sixth-GradeSkilled Readers to Search for and Locate Information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2),214–257. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending andLearning From Internet Sources : Processing Patterns of Better and Poorer Learners. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 47(4), 356–381. doi:10.1002/RRQ.027Hagerman, M.S. (2011, December). The contributions of inhibition, spatial working memory and set shifting tomeasures of online and print-based reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy ResearchAssociation, Jacksonville, Florida.Hagerman, M.S. (2013). Synthesis of Multiple, Multi-Modal Internet Texts: Does Online Synthesis Instruction(OSI) Have An Impact? Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Henry, L. a. (2006). SEARCHing for an Answer: The Critical Role of New Literacies While Reading on theInternet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614–627. doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.1
    38. 38. ReferencesIto, M., Horst, H., Bittani, M., boyd, dana, Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., et al. (2008).Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. The John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from, C., Laurinen, L., Marttunen, M., & Leu, D. J. (2012). Working on Understanding During CollaborativeOnline Reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 448–483. doi:10.1177/1086296X12457166Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age.In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3 (Vol. 3,pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Donald J. Leu, Jr., Charles K. Kinzer, Julie L.Coiro, and Dana W. Cammack. Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1570–1613).Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-18-year-olds.Menlo Park, CA. Retrieved from, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the Web:Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75-104.