Sink or Swim: Online Reading Comprehension
By: Meredith Lutz
Pre-Service Teacher
Indiana University
November 2014
Can we remember the days when reading involved the physical touch of pages among pages? Can we think back to the time before smartphones, personal computers, or even the internet? Some people may answer yes, and some may answer no. However, many people probably do not miss the “old days” without digital technology. Look how far we have come. We are now able to treat and cure many cancers; we can communicate through video all over the world; and traveling is such a breeze without the use of those maps you have to hold by hand. Could we ask for anything more? How about better reading comprehension among our youth? Maria Konnikova (2014), blogger and contributing writer for the New Yorker, notices a reoccurring theme in the responses to Maryanne Wolf’s Proust and the Squid. “…the more reading move[s] online, the less students seem to understand” (Konnikova 2014). Similarly, adolescents lack the necessary skills to locate and evaluate information online (Leu, 2011, p. 8). Therefore, it appears that the rate of online reading comprehension in adolescence does not match the ever growing rate of technological advances. This is something that can either scare us or encourage us to improve the way we approach online reading comprehension. What will we choose to do?
What is online reading comprehension?
Reading is reading, and therefore it should not matter if someone is reading online or in print, right? Wrong! David J. Leu, professor of Education at the University of Connecticut and researcher of new literacies, along with other professionals respond with the following: “Online reading comprehension is not isomorphic with offline reading comprehension: additional practices, skills, and strategies appear to be required” (2011, p. 6). With online and other digital formats, there are more than one text and genre at the reader’s disposal.
Going along with this idea, Dr. Wendy Sutherland-Smith, Senior Lecturer for the School of Psychology at Deakin University in Australia, defines what she calls web literacy. According to Sutherland-Smith (2002), web literacy is the ability to find, scan, digest, and store information found on the internet (p. 663). This sounds pretty simple. Wouldn’t we do these things with print, as well? Yes, we should, but it is even of more importance that we do these things when online because we are engaging in something called nonlinear reading (Zomorodi, 2014). With print we have the selected texts in front of us, and we read them. This is not necessarily the case with digital reading. Articles are surrounded with links and pictures and advertisements all causing the reader to jump from site to site. Therefore, readers not only have to focus on constructing meaning of online texts; they have to know how to feel comfortable and orient themselves in the online medium (Afflerbach, 2009, p. 83).
Maryanne Wolf goes further to describe something that she considers key to online text comprehension. She describes the concept of the bi-literate brain, meaning the ability to know when and how to go between print and digital mediums. “She says we have to develop a ‘bi-literate’ brain if we want to be able to switch from the scattered skimming typical of screen reading to the deeper, slow reading that we associate with books on paper” (Zomorodi, 2014). But, is this possible to do? Is it too late to train our brains to reject the skimming nature of the Internet?
Hopefully, you are now understanding the complexity of online reading and comprehension. We’ve been talking about some of the components of online and digital reading. Let’s go more in depth about what some of these “additional strategies” entail.
What additional strategies need to be taught?
Leu et al. (2008) has proposed the following four categories for online comprehension strategies: identifying a question of defining a problem, using the Internet to locate an information resource, critically evaluating information, and integrating information from multiple sources (qtd. in Afflerbach, 2009, p. 83).
• Identifying a question of defining a problem:
Although asking questions and defining problems can be used with print, questions and problems are a must for online reading. Leu (2008) identifies online reading comprehension as a problem-based inquiry process (p. 323). He emphasizes this when he states, “How a problem is framed, or how a question is understood, is a central aspect of online reading comprehension” (p. 323). Therefore, schools should encourage questioning and problem-based inquiry throughout their classrooms. Not only do these strategies help create classroom culture, but it also sets a foundation for the additional strategies needed to be successful digital readers. Without questions and problem-based inquiry, it will be hard to implement the other strategies.
• Using the Internet to locate an information resource:
Locating information encompasses many strategies in itself. Leu (2008) names some skills such as using a search engine, reading search engine results, and reading a web page efficiently and effectively to get the best information (p. 323). Besides being able to understand single web pages, online readers need to know how to navigate themselves from web pages to articles. Tierney (2009) adds, “On-line comprehension involves planning within and across Web sites, predicting and following leads, and monitoring how and where to proceed (p. 264). Students need to be exposed and guided as to how to sort through the never ending unknown domain of information. Many times with print, students are given the book that they have to read. Although students can be given a specific digital or online article to read, it is more realistic that they will not always be given their exact resources. Thus, online readers need to know how to navigate their own paths, their self-directed text construction (Leu, 2008, p. 323).
• Critically evaluating information:
Evaluating information is more important than ever. Although there are more credible and reliable print sources than others, the fact is that those researchers had to be published. They had to have someone acknowledge and verify what they researched. Being critical of online sources is key as anyone can publish anything on the Internet (Leu, 2008, p. 224). Leu demonstrates the importance of constantly teaching and revisiting this skill when he found that forty-seven out of fifty-three high performing online seventh grade readers believed a site to be reliable when in reality it was not credible; it was designed to test students’ knowledge of what makes a reliable site, and these students failed (Leu, 2008, p. 224). Although it takes time, teaching students to be critical of what they read is an investment that will only improve their online comprehension and make things easier in the long run.
• Integrating information from multiple sources:
With online reading, readers will most likely be utilizing more than one text at a time. Therefore, students are no longer reading one text and deriving meaning from that one text. Given the multiple sources that students have found, students then have to weave meaning through comparing and contrasting across sources (Tierney, 2009, p. 263). Therefore, students need to have a deep understanding of what it means to synthesize because if they cannot synthesize one text, it is going to be next to impossible to synthesize multiple online texts.
While these are four broad categories of strategies, Leu (2008) discusses another strategy that deserves it’s own category: communicating strategies used. Collaboration is still valued even though readers may be using online resources. Actually, it could even be considered more important than ever. With technology advancing quicker and quicker, students need to know how to efficiently and effectively communicate their ideas among their peers (Leu, 2008, p. 329). Part of that involves accessibility and knowledge of the digital tools such as blogs, Google docs, wikis, just to name a few. Students need to know that there is not just one way to communicate and that they need to always be looking out for different tools to enhance communication.
What do students think about online reading?
Since the Internet and digital format of texts is constantly changing, it is important to see what the future generations think of it. From conducting interviews, researchers not only learn their opinions and ideas, but they also have the opportunity to clear any misconceptions about online reading. Sutherland-Smith (2002) conducted a study among 48 sixth graders in the suburbs of Melbourne, Australia, where she recorded the students’ reactions to a computer-based writing class (p. 664). Here are some of the responses:
• “On the Internet, you have to be really quick and can go lots of places to find out heaps of stuff, but with books you need to go slower.”
• “You need time to look at the book, but, like, you need to be real fast at typing and clicking to find the stuff you want on the Net.”
• One student responded that the visual images online were “more life-like” than those in print.
• Students questioned the authenticity and credibility of texts on the Internet more than print texts.
• Students expected instant results and instant gratification when conducting Internet searches.
• Students also believed that when reading online that a couple of Internet searches would suffice compared to a myriad of print texts.
These students were able to see the importance in non-text features such as the images and realized that it is important to question the credibility of sites. These are great accomplishments and show that students are on the path to becoming literate in online reading. However, it is very clear that these students connect the idea of fast skimming with the Internet and slow, deep thinking with print. Teresa Dobson, researcher on hypertext novels, found some similar results. When she asked her students to compare a book to a hypertext, one of her students replied, “You can read it but you can’t quite get into it as much” (qtd. in Tierney, 2009, p. 266), again emphasizing the belief that the Internet is not a place for deep thinking and understanding. This illustrates the need for explicit instruction regarding digital and online texts. Students need to know that slow, deep thinking is crucial for comprehending any type of medium.
So, is online reading worse than print reading?
Just like with anything, there are benefits and concerns of both digital and print reading. According to Wolf, no longitudinal data exists about digital comprehension (qtd in Konnikova, 2014). Therefore, researchers and the general public do not have enough evidence or support to say that print or online reading is better. We can accept a view like Konnikova (2014) as she shares, “And it’s quite possible that the apprehension is misplaced: perhaps digital reading isn’t worse so much as different than print reading.”
Going along with that, just because online and digital reading is the current thing does not mean that we should forget where we came from. Afflerbach and Cho (2009) emphasize how “traditional” reading comprehension strategies for print are still valuable in that they provide a foundation that can be applied to online reading comprehension (pp. 84–85). Print comprehension strategies can still be applied to the digital world; we just need additional strategies to best digest what that digital world has to offer.
Besides acknowledging that print and digital reading comprehension are different, we also need to realize that the definition of literacy is constantly changing. Leu (2011) describes literacy as being deictic, meaning that the nature and meaning of literacy is continuously changing (p. 6). Therefore, we need to equip students and readers to question and evaluate what they are reading and what they are comprehending. Leu (2011) says that we need to be technology critics (p. 7) and that we need to create healthy skeptics of technology (p. 10). If readers are used to questioning and evaluating themselves as they read, then they will be more adept in adapting to the changes in literacy.
Let’s finish with some food for thought from researchers on literacy and technology, Selfe and Hawisher:
If literacy educators continue to define literacy in terms of alphabetic practices only, in ways that ignore, exclude, or devalue new-media texts, they not only abdicate a professional responsibility to describe the ways in which humans are now communicating and making meaning, but they also run the risk of their curriculum no longer holding relevance for students who are communicating in increasingly expansive networked environments (qtd. in Tierney, 2009, p. 271).
Online reading, it is your choice. Are you going to sink or swim?
References
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In Israel, S. E., & Duffy, G. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–86). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dalton, B., & Rose, D. (2008). Scaffolding digital comprehension. In Block, C. C., & Parris, S. R. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 347–358). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Konnikova, M. (2014, July 16). Being a better online reader. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/being-a-better-online-reader
Leu, D. J., Corio, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Henry, L. A., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In Block, C. C., & Parris, S. R. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 321–346). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo, H., Kennedy, C., & Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literary and learning curriculum. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 55(1), 5–11.
Rosenwald, M. S. (2014, April 2). Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/serious-reading-takes-a-hit-from-online-scanning-and-skimming-researchers-say/2014/04/06/088028d2-b5d2-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher 55(1), 662–668.
Tierney, R.J. (2009). The agency and artistry of meaning makers within and across digital spaces. In Israel, S. E., & Duffy, G. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 261–280). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zomorodi, M. (Host), & WNYC (Producer). (2014, September 17). The ‘bi-literate’ brain: The key to reading in a sea of screens. New Tech City [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.wnyc.org/story/reading-screens-messing-your-brain-so-train-it-be-bi-literate/
Comments
“I agree that we should not go backwards and need to be proactive about emerging technologies. However, I really question the true aim of using these new digital literacies. I feel that this will promote a social power gap where only the opinions of the socially elite will be heard. For example, how are people of lower SES backgrounds supposed to be heard if they do not have the same access to these literacy tools? In my opinion, this will lead to cultural disruption, cultural erosion, and cultural imperialism (Tierney, 2009, p. 273).”
“I am very honored that you chose to include my work in your article. I think that you touched on a major concern that is important for people to be concerned about with regards to online reading. The internet does not offer the tangibility that print does, and with that comes the encouragement of more skimming behavior. Readers become accustomed to reading quickly without really stopping to think about what they are reading; they begin to accept it as the norm of online reading (Konnikova, 2014). I agree that this is will be the instructor’s biggest teaching point now and in the future with regards to online reading comprehension. Readers, especially our youth, need to know that you still can think slowly and deeply when reading online.
Another concern that digital reading can spur is it’s exhausting nature. There is so much more filtering as sites are often inundated with hyperlinks, advertisements, and images. I find myself fatigued from taking it all in, so I cannot imagine how elementary and high school students feel when they are trying to read online (Konnikova, 2014).
Like you, I do not think that these concerns should stop us from moving forward. We need to address these concerns as we continue to move forward into the ever changing forms of literacy!”
“I see that you appeared to just ignore my thoughts and concerns when quoting Sutherland-Smith (2002), so I thought that I would just make my voice heard. Using the Internet in the classroom is the worst possible thing you could do, unless you’re wanting to ruin reading comprehension. With the Internet, students will exhibit poor concentration skills, poor writing skills, and superficial understanding (p. 663). Students will not be engaged because of all of the distractions that the Internet offers. Why would you want to risk changing things when reading comprehension with print works just fine?”
