Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

“It’s easier to read on the Internet—you just click on what you want to read…”

Abilities and skills needed for reading on the Internet

Abstract

Today’s youth spend a lot of time on the Internet where they meet a multimodal world. The focus in the present study has been on the skills and abilities needed for on-line reading. This study explores reading on the Internet, with pairs of Swedish students aged 10 and 15. The pairs completed tasks on the Internet and these sessions were video-taped. Five main categories of skills and abilities were found: traditional literacy, multimodal literacy, path-finding, IT abilities, and information abilities. The results support earlier research in the field at large, and also add to the literature on on-line reading, in areas such as the crucial need for the ability to spell and knowing web address conventions in English.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Aarseth, E. J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

  2. Adams, M. J. (1993). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  3. Alexandersson, M., Linderoth, J., & Lindö, R. (2001). Bland barn och datorer: lärandets villkor i mötet med nya medier. [Among children and computers: the demands of learning meets the new media] Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

  4. Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell.

  5. Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 131–156.

  6. Bergman, M. (1999). På jakt efter högstadieelevers Internetanvändning: en studie av högstadieelevers Internetanvändning och Internet som kulturellt fenomen i skolan. [On a hunt for senior compulsory school students’ Internet use] Licentiate thesis. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.

  7. Bolter, J. D., & Gromala, D. (2003). Windows and mirrors: Interaction design, digital art and the myth of transparency. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.

  8. Chan, E., & Unsworth, L. (2011). Image–language interaction in online reading environments: challenges for students’ reading comprehension. The Australian Educational Researcher 38(2), 181–202. doi:10.1007/s13384-011-0023-y.

  9. Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring literacy on the internet: reading comprehension on the internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464.

  10. Coiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking, modelling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50, 107–115.

  11. 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, 24(2), 214–257.

  12. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research in new literacies (pp. 1–21). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

  13. Education Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competencies for lifelong learning. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union, 30.12.2006

  14. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.

  15. Findahl, O., & Zimic, S. (2008). Unga svenskar och Internet 2008 [Young Swedes and the Internet 2008]. World Internet Institute. URL: [http://www.wii.se/publicerat/doc_download/15-unga-svenskar-och-internet-2008.html]. Retrieved 5 August, 2010.

  16. Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

  17. Gordon, C. (1999). Student as authentic researchers: a new prescription for the high school research assignment. School Library Media Research Online, 2. URL: [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume21999/vol2gordon.cfm] Retrieved August 3, 2010.

  18. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

  19. Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.

  20. Internet World Stats. (2011). Internet usage in Europe. URL: [http://www.internetworldstats.com/]. Retrieved February 1, 2011.

  21. Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, D., & Barr, R. (2000). Handbook of reading research, volume III. London: Routledge.

  22. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.

  23. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

  24. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies. Buckingham: Open University Press.

  25. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  27. Leino, K. (2003). Computer usage and reading literacy. In S. Lie, P. Linnakylä, & A. Roe (Eds.), Northern lights on PISA (pp. 71–81). Oslo: University of Oslo.

  28. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. Theoretical Models and Process of Reading, 5, 1570–1613.

  29. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., & O’Neil, M. (2007). What is New about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In A. Berger, L. Rush, & J. Eakle (Eds.), Secondary school reading and writing: What research reveals for classroom practices. Chicago: NCTE/NCRLL.

  30. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (2009). EUDICO Linguistic Annotator. URL: [http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan/]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

  31. McCarthy, J. D., Sasse, M. A., & Riegelsberger, J. (2004). Could I have the menu please? An eye tracking study of design conventions. People and computers XVII-Designing for society pp. 401–414. Springer-Verlag: London.

  32. Nilsson, N. (2002). Skriv med egna ord: En studie av läroprocesser när elever i grundskolans senare år skriver “forskningsrapporter” [Write with your own words: A study of learning processes of students writing “research reports” in the late years of compulsury school](Diss.). Malmö, Sweden: Malmö högskola.

  33. OECD (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line: Digital technologies and performance (Volume VI). URL: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en].

  34. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.

  35. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

  36. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Río, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  37. Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. NY: The Guilford Press.

  38. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  39. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18, 513–527.

  40. Walsh, M., Asha, J., & Sprainger, N. (2007). Reading digital texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(1), 40–53.

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledges Professor Lisbeth Åberg-Bengtsson for help and support during the research process and valuable points of view on the manuscript.

Author information

Correspondence to Maria Rasmusson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rasmusson, M., Eklund, M. “It’s easier to read on the Internet—you just click on what you want to read…”. Educ Inf Technol 18, 401–419 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9190-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Reading
  • On-line reading
  • The Internet
  • Multimodality
  • Text