Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 7, pp 1525–1549 | Cite as

An exploratory study of middle-school learners’ historical reading in an internet environment

  • Byeong-Young Cho
  • Hyeju Han
  • Linda L. Kucan
Article
First Online:

Abstract

We investigated seventh-grade students’ use of Internet sources as they engaged in an online inquiry about a historical event. The participating students read on the Internet individually in order to better understand the given historical event, navigating the Internet and examining different online texts they identified as useful sources for learning. The primary data sources were the think-aloud protocols that the students generated during the task. These verbal data were analyzed to reveal the students’ strategic processing of multiple Internet sources for the purpose of historical learning. The students’ verbal reporting data indicate that a shortage of prior knowledge and incorrect associations of the knowledge activated in reading are not helpful for learning important ideas from historical online reading. The data also suggest that engaging in the processes of finding textual evidence from more than one source of information and using that evidence to take sensemaking one step further may help a student learn more accurately. Based on the results, we discuss implications for teaching and learning to help students become more historically informed strategic readers in a digital age.

Keywords

Digital literacy Disciplinary literacy Multiple text comprehension Historical thinking Middle school learners Verbal protocol analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study described in this manuscript was supported by the University of Pittsburgh School of Education’s Faculty Seed Grant.

References

  1. Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afflerbach, P., & VanSledright, B. (2001). Hath! Doth! What? Middle graders reading innovative history text. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 696–707.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, P. A. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the twenty-first century. Educational Psychologist, 47, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2017). The future of truth and misinformation online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/10/19/the-future-of-truth-and-misinformation-online/.
  5. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bain, R. B. (2005). They thought the world was flat?: Applying the principles of how people learn in teaching high school history. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History in the classroom (pp. 179–212). Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  7. Banks, J. A. (2017). Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 366–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students’ evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braasch, J. L. G., Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Manning, F. H., Gomez, K. W., & Macleod, S. M. (2009). Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students’ use of source attributes to select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castek, J., & Manderino, M. (2017). A planning framework for integrating digital literacies for disciplinary learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(6), 697–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cho, B.-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of Internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32(3), 253–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho, B.-Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  16. Cho, B.-Y., Afflerbach, P., & Han, H. (2018a). Strategic processing in accessing, comprehending, and using multiple sources online. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 133–150). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Cho, B-Y., Woodward, L., & Li, D. (2018b). Epistemic processing when adolescents read online: A verbal protocol analysis of more and less successful online readers. Reading Research Quarterly, pp. 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.190.
  18. Cho, B.-Y., Woodward, L., Li, D., & Barlow, W. (2017). Examining adolescents’ strategic processing during online reading with a question-generating task. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 691–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De La Paz, S., Ferretti, R., Wissinger, D., Yee, L., & MacArthur, C. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29(4), 412–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox, E., & Maggioni, L. (2018). Multiple source use in history. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381.Google Scholar
  25. Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., et al. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework of core processes and constructs. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greene, J. A., Yu, S., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education, 76, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The inter sextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hernández-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning history in middle school by designing multimedia in a project-based learning experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kiili, C., Leu, D. J., Marttunen, M., Hautala, J., & Leppänen, P. (2018). Exploring early adolescents’ evaluation of academic and commercial online resources related to health. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(1), 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kucan, L., Cho, B.-Y., & Han, H. (2017). Introducing the historical thinking practice of contextualizing to middle school students. The Social Studies, 108(5), 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawless, K. A., Brown, S. W., Mills, R., & Mayall, H. J. (2003). Knowledge, interest, recall and navigation: A look at hypertext processing. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 911–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 441–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lenhardt, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/.
  36. Lenhart, A., Simon, M., & Graziano, M. (2001). The internet and education: Findings of the pew internet and american life project. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  37. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark. NJ: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lévesque, S., Ng-A-Fook, N., & Corrigan, J. (2014). What does the eye see? Reading online primary source photographs in history. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 101–140.Google Scholar
  39. McCrudden, M. T., Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on Norwegian students’ document selection: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moje, E. B., Stockdill, D., Kim, K., & Kim, H. (2011). The role of text in disciplinary learning. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, P. A. Afflerbach, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 453–486). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  41. Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(2), 212–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://www.socialstudies.org/c3.
  43. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.
  44. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Reuters Institute digital news report 2017. Retrieved December 26, 2017 from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital%20News%20Report%202017%20web_0.pdf.
  45. Palincsar, A. S., & Schutz, K. M. (2011). Reconnecting strategy instruction with its theoretical roots. Theory into Practice, 50(2), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Georgi, M. C., & Mason, R. A. (1994). How students use texts to learn and reason about historical uncertainty. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 257–283). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Resisman, A., & Wineburg, S. (2008). Teaching the skill of contextualizing in history. The Social Studies, 99(5), 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richgels, D. J., McGee, L. M., Lomax, R. G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, B. E., Kiili, C., & Kauppinen, M. (2016). Transmediating argumentation: Students composing across written essays and digital videos in higher education. Computers & Education, 102, 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stadtler, M., Bromme, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (2017). Learning from multiple documents: How can we foster multiple document literacy skills in a sustainable way? In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies (pp. 46–61). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Stanford History Education Group (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Retrieved January 12, 2018, from https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.pdf.
  62. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2003). Students’ strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students' reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. VanSledright, B. A. (2002). Confronting history’s interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders to investigate the past. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1089–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. VanSledright, B. A., & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: The influence of multiple sources on six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Veenman, M. V. J. (2015). Metacognition. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 26–40). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Wiley, J., Jaeger, A. J., & Griffin, T. D. (2018). Effects on instructional conditions on comprehension from multiple sources in history and science. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2016). Why students can’t Google their way to the truth. Education Week, 36(11), 22–28.Google Scholar
  72. Wineburg, S., & Reisman, A. (2015). Disciplinary literacy in history. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58, 636–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instruction and Learning, Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Instruction and LearningUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Department of Instruction and LearningUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options